Enough Wallowing about Film

[HHPhoto]

Maybe, but Kodak is not set up that way. They have a specialized production line for film. If Hollywood dried up, would they really invest money to retool their paper coaters, for the benefit of a few still photographers? It's an open question.

This question is not as open as many think.
Let's have a look at the facts:

1. Biggest consumer of movie film is Bollywood, not Hollywood. And Bollywood is still some years away from completely turning to digital.

2. It's unlikely that the complete movie industry turns digital. There are lots of reasons for shooting film in movies.
Most likely in the long run we will see with movie film the same as with still film: A niche compared to digital, but a vivid one.
And even a niche movie film market needs millions of feet every year.

3. All digital movies are archived on film. Because it is much more save and 5x - 10x cheaper than digital storage.
Both Fuji and Kodak have recently developed new film types for this application.

4. There are lots of other applications where film is essential: Microfilm, PCB film (gigantic market), even X-Ray film see a bit resurgence for archival purposes: digital x-ray shots are archived on X-ray film because it is the safest and cheapest solution.

5. The market of consumer film ist still a very big one (and in segments like low-fi / Lomo even rapidly increasing).
Last year in U.S alone about 36 million single use cameras were sold.

Some of these film products will be niche products in the future, some remain mass products.
But if you add all these (niche) film segments and film products, then you will have a big sum with millions of m².

Currently Kodak is coating film in Rochester, and paper in Denver and afaik somewhere in England as well.
Today both segments are probably still too big to combine them in one factory.
But in some years that could make economic sense.
Maybe then film and paper are coated both in Rochester in three shifts 24h a day. It is not a technical problem, and then the machines can be run cost efficient at full capacity.

Cheers, Jan

 

[bensyverson]

Well, for our sake, I hope you're right! I guess the bigger question is whether or not Kodak can survive at all, and if not, whether the film division can keep going under whatever private equity firm decides to buy it.

 

[gb hill]

Great post & very well said. I'll shoot my tribute to Plus-X & move on to shooting my rolls of Arista EDU 100. I'll contuine to buy & use whats available & enjoy every minute of it!😀

 

[semilog]

I'm so backlogged in developing (not to mention scanning of those which are already developed) film, that I've got lots to last me after the Latter Days of the Filmpocalypse.

Anybody who isn't, doesn't really care about film. ;-)

 

[nemo2]

The only thing I worry about is that I have enough time to dump my analogue cameras before they loose all their value. I couldn't give two ****s about film. It's the pictures that matter to me, good pictures, regardless of the medium used. Film dead? Good riddance! Photography's still alive and that's what matters.

It might be interesting to see how many film cameras are there per film shooter and what is the trend - there are not many produced recently and the legacy ones are subject to wear. I guess some types (e. g. 35 mm AF SLRs and some higher-end compact cameras) and especially some models will disappear in quite "near" future (e. g. a couple of decades). Wíll the possible demise of film be faster or slower?

 

[HHPhoto]

It might be interesting to see how many film cameras are there per film shooter

There were some articles with data published during the last years.
Due to CIPA (the organisation of camera manufacturers) from the year 2000 until this year more than 90 million analogue cameras were sold.
Considering the production numbers of the decades before, probably 300 - 500 million working analogue cameras are still around worldwide.

The Impossible Project said that there are about 300 million working Polaroid cameras around worldwide.

Currently more than 1 million new film based cameras are sold every year. Trend: Increasing.
Most of them belong to the low-fidelity segment (Holgas, Superheadz and Lomo cams) and instant cameras (Fuji Instax; Fuji published recently that this market is growing).

and what is the trend - there are not many produced recently and the legacy ones are subject to wear.

See above. The number of new film cameras sold is growing.

I guess some types (e. g. 35 mm AF SLRs and some higher-end compact cameras) and especially some models will disappear in quite "near" future (e. g. a couple of decades). Wíll the possible demise of film be faster or slower?

There will be neither a demise of film, nor a demise of film cameras.
The number of working film cameras is so huge that there will be no lack of cameras in the future.
And if neveretheless a lack is appearing, that would lead to higher prices, and with higher prices of used cameras it will be more attractive for camera manufacturers to introduce new models.

We have seen the evidence for that during the last ten years with all the new cameras by Cosina/Voigtländer, Zeiss Ikon and Franke&Heidecke/DHW Fototechnik.

Cheers, Jan

 

[timor]

It might be interesting to see how many film cameras are there per film shooter and what is the trend - there are not many produced recently and the legacy ones are subject to wear. I guess some types (e. g. 35 mm AF SLRs and some higher-end compact cameras) and especially some models will disappear in quite "near" future (e. g. a couple of decades). Wíll the possible demise of film be faster or slower?

Partially you are right, electronics in many cameras will give up with the age. But this is a problem of the ones dependent on AF and auto exposure. However someone in need will be always able to buy new, super-duper light meter and think on his own when choosing the exposure. I see real danger for my hobby in fast growing shipping costs of photographic materials. That will be real killer of silver based photography. Sooner or later.

 

[Roger Hicks]

The number of working film cameras is so huge that there will be no lack of cameras in the future.
Jan

Dear Jan,

Exactly. I'd worry about film disappearing LONG before I worried about running out of cameras -- and I'm not worried about film disappearing, for the reasons you gave in an earlier post; "4. There are lots of other applications where film is essential: Microfilm, PCB film (gigantic market), even X-Ray film see a bit resurgence for archival purposes: digital x-ray shots are archived on X-ray film because it is the safest and cheapest solution."

But some people just love to worry.

Cheers,

R.

 

[HHPhoto]

Partially you are right, electronics in many cameras will give up with the age.

Electronics are often more age resistant than mechanics.
Mechanic has scuffing, electronics not.

Look at the first electronic cameras: Canon AE-1, introduced 1976.
And they are still working. Same with Canon A-1, Minolta XD-7 (introduced 1977), Nikon F-3 and so on....
Even if an electronic part stops working, then it will be replaced by a part from a broken camera which now serves as a spare part dispenser.

Cheers, Jan

 

[shadowfox]

This question is not as open as many think.
Let's have a look at the facts:

1. Biggest consumer of movie film is Bollywood, not Hollywood. And Bollywood is still some years away from completely turning to digital.

2. It's unlikely that the complete movie industry turns digital. There are lots of reasons for shooting film in movies.
Most likely in the long run we will see with movie film the same as with still film: A niche compared to digital, but a vivid one.
And even a niche movie film market needs millions of feet every year.

3. All digital movies are archived on film. Because it is much more save and 5x - 10x cheaper than digital storage.
Both Fuji and Kodak have recently developed new film types for this application.

4. There are lots of other applications where film is essential: Microfilm, PCB film (gigantic market), even X-Ray film see a bit resurgence for archival purposes: digital x-ray shots are archived on X-ray film because it is the safest and cheapest solution.

5. The market of consumer film ist still a very big one (and in segments like low-fi / Lomo even rapidly increasing).
Last year in U.S alone about 36 million single use cameras were sold.

Some of these film products will be niche products in the future, some remain mass products.
But if you add all these (niche) film segments and film products, then you will have a big sum with millions of m².

Currently Kodak is coating film in Rochester, and paper in Denver and afaik somewhere in England as well.
Today both segments are probably still too big to combine them in one factory.
But in some years that could make economic sense.
Maybe then film and paper are coated both in Rochester in three shifts 24h a day. It is not a technical problem, and then the machines can be run cost efficient at full capacity.

Cheers, Jan

Jan,

Do Ilford and Adox (and other film manufacturers that I don't know about) depend in any way on revenues from the movie industry?

If not, then even when Kodak or Fuji finally lost the movie industry, we still have film manufacturers that solely cater to still photography, do we not?

 

[HHPhoto]

Jan,

Do Ilford and Adox (and other film manufacturers that I don't know about) depend in any way on revenues from the movie industry?

Hi Will,

the following film manufacturers are not producing movie film:

Lucky
Ilford
Foma
Fotokemika
Shanghai
Tasma
InovisCoat

The following manufacturers are producing movie film:

Kodak
Fuji
Agfa-Gevaert (only movie print film and sound film)
FilmoTec (only BW)

Agfa-Gevaert is not totally dependant on movie film, because they have other strong segments (microfilm, aerial film, PCB film etc.)

Fuji is not totally dependant on movie film because of their big business with color negative paper RA-4. This business is stable and strong, because most digital photos which are printed are printed on RA-4 paper by laser printers. Fuji is market leader and producing dozens of millions of m² p.a.

FilmoTec: Irrelevant for us photographers (at least currently there are no relevant FilmoTec films on the still photo market).

Kodak: Most of their film production is indeed movie film. But as I have said, they are also producing some film products which are essential for the future (movie archive film, microfilm) and they are at 2. position in the RA-4 market.
In the long run their sustainable production strategy will likely be producing film and RA-4 paper on the same machines. There is no general technical problem. Most other manufacturers are doing this for decades (e.g. Agfa, Ilford, Foma, Fotokemika).

If not, then even when Kodak or Fuji finally lost the movie industry, we still have film manufacturers that solely cater to still photography, do we not?

Even if Kodak and Fuji will finally loose most of the movie industry (there will definitely in the future film production for the movie industry because of long term archiving on film) we will have manufacturers producing film and photopaper (the photopaper market is bigger in terms of m² than the film market).

Cheers, Jan

 

[timor]

Electronics are often more age resistant than mechanics.
Mechanic has scuffing, electronics not.

Look at the first electronic cameras: Canon AE-1, introduced 1976.
And they are still working. Same with Canon A-1, Minolta XD-7 (introduced 1977), Nikon F-3 and so on....
Even if an electronic part stops working, then it will be replaced by a part from a broken camera which now serves as a spare part dispenser.

Cheers, Jan

I have a few cameras in which electronics gave up. That include Canon A1. No luck so far with finding a repairman willing to do repair. A1 is useless, no manual mode. And there is a limited number of high class cameras like F3 or (even less) XD7, often used by professionals to almost the end of useful life. I have failing shutters in my Bronica lenses. Who gonna fix that ? I have Olympus OM1 with very optimistic light meter (3 stops above) and not sure if the readings are linear. At list shutter works. The only mechanical failure I encounter with Canon FTb, but then again it may have been used by professional. And that was fixed, no problem. So things may be really dicey for old stuff.

 

[HHPhoto]

I have a few cameras in which electronics gave up. That include Canon A1. No luck so far with finding a repairman willing to do repair. A1 is useless, no manual mode. And there is a limited number of high class cameras like F3 or (even less) XD7, often used by professionals to almost the end of useful life. I have failing shutters in my Bronica lenses. Who gonna fix that ? I have Olympus OM1 with very optimistic light meter (3 stops above) and not sure if the readings are linear. At list shutter works. The only mechanical failure I encounter with Canon FTb, but then again it may have been used by professional. And that was fixed, no problem. So things may be really dicey for old stuff.

Where are you living?
Here in Germany it is not a problem to get these cameras fixed.

Cheers, Jan

(friends of mine are using AE-1, XD-7 and F 3 without problems)

 

[Roger Hicks]

Reliability and reparability are very separate questions. Mechanical parts can start to fail (run slower, etc.) but still be usable, whereas electronics normally offer a simple choice: work/not work. Even if the electronics are more reliable (often disputable), once they go, forget it (unless you have a donor camera and a very good repair man). Often, in any case, the problem is at the electromechanical interface, i.e. the switchgear.

Cheers,

R.

 

[timor]

Where are you living?
Here in Germany it is not a problem to get these cameras fixed.

Cheers, Jan

(friends of mine are using AE-1, XD-7 and F 3 without problems)

I am in Toronto. I never seen XD7 live yet, F3 yes, but the prices are horrendous. I am mostly holding to Minoltas X-series and hoarding them for the future. But I have also plenty of other stuff; pure mechanical and AE-AF and still buying. I feel safe for the rest of my life😉
I wonder, if you can find new Seiko shutters for Bronica in Germany.
Regards, Wojtek

 

[shadowfox]

Hi Will,

the following film manufacturers are not producing movie film:

Lucky
Ilford
Foma
Fotokemika
Shanghai
Tasma
InovisCoat

The following manufacturers are producing movie film:

Kodak
Fuji
Agfa-Gevaert (only movie print film and sound film)
FilmoTec (only BW)

Agfa-Gevaert is not totally dependant on movie film, because they have other strong segments (microfilm, aerial film, PCB film etc.)

Jan, this is very relevant and useful but seldom circulated in the usual doom and gloom "news." Thank you.

It's time for us to be savvy about where to spend our money to buy film.

One question on this segment: Who produces Adox CHS film? I thought Adox coats their own film.

Fuji is not totally dependant on movie film because of their big business with color negative paper RA-4. This business is stable and strong, because most digital photos which are printed are printed on RA-4 paper by laser printers. Fuji is market leader and producing dozens of millions of m² p.a.

FilmoTec: Irrelevant for us photographers (at least currently there are no relevant FilmoTec films on the still photo market).

Kodak: Most of their film production is indeed movie film. But as I have said, they are also producing some film products which are essential for the future (movie archive film, microfilm) and they are at 2. position in the RA-4 market.
In the long run their sustainable production strategy will likely be producing film and RA-4 paper on the same machines. There is no general technical problem. Most other manufacturers are doing this for decades (e.g. Agfa, Ilford, Foma, Fotokemika).

Jan you lost me at using laser printer on RA-4 paper, how does that actually work?

Even if Kodak and Fuji will finally loose most of the movie industry (there will definitely in the future film production for the movie industry because of long term archiving on film) we will have manufacturers producing film and photopaper (the photopaper market is bigger in terms of m² than the film market).

Cheers, Jan

So after they shoot the film using digital cameras at HD resolution, they project those onto film and keep those for archival purposes?

 

[HHPhoto]

I am in Toronto. ....
I wonder, if you can find new Seiko shutters for Bronica in Germany.
Regards, Wojtek

Ah, Toronto, o.K.
The infrastructure for film and film cameras is much better in Germany compared to Canada. Not surprising, the German market is simply much bigger. 82 million people vs. 30 million people.

Service for Bronica: Due to german law the manufacturers here have to offer service for at least ten years. Tamron stopped distribution of Zenza Bronica cameras in 2004, therefore they still have to offer service.

http://www.tamron.eu/de/service/hilfe-z ... rvice.html

Independant specialists for Zenza Bronica cameras:

http://www.service-bronica.de/reperatur.html

http://www.intro2020.co.uk/pages/service.htm

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

One question on this segment: Who produces Adox CHS film? I thought Adox coats their own film.

Adox CHS is produced (emulsion making and coating) by Fotokemika in Croatia. Selected production runs of Efke 25, 50 and 100.
Cutting and packing is now made by Adox.

The AP 400 will be made by InovisCoat in Germany www.inoviscoat.de
This company is already making the Adox MCP and MCC paper for Adox (emulsion making and coating; cutting and packing is made by Adox).
The InovisCoat stuff are all former Agfa Leverkusen, Germany, engineers and technicians.
The coating machine is from the former Agfa factory in Leverkusen.

Mirko Böddecker of Adox has always said in his Fotoimpex forum, that Adox will not make coating by themselves (they can't do it, they don't have a running production line for that).

Jan you lost me at using laser printer on RA-4 paper, how does that actually work?

Very similar to "normal" enlargement: A laser light source is exposing the paper, and after that it is developed in RA-4 chemistry.
The advantage of laser printing is the extremely short exposing time (much less than one second).
These short times means extremely high output and low costs. A very efficient method.
But you need a paper suitable for that with high sensivity.

AFAIK BW papers Ilford Multigrade RC IV and Adox MCP are also suitable for laser printing.

So after they shoot the film using digital cameras at HD resolution, they project those onto film and keep those for archival purposes?

Yes.

Cheers, Jan

 

[timor]

Ah, Toronto, o.K.
The infrastructure for film and film cameras is much better in Germany compared to Canada. Not surprising, the German market is simply much bigger. 82 million people vs. 30 million people.

Service for Bronica: Due to german law the manufacturers here have to offer service for at least ten years. Tamron stopped distribution of Zenza Bronica cameras in 2004, therefore they still have to offer service.
Cheers, Jan

Well, that was to be expected. Not only less people, but also thinly stretched. And whatever is not bringing ample profit usually is abandoned.
I contact locally Tamron and they said, they do not make Bronica stuff any more. But then Canada does not have such a law. To bad.
Thank's Jan.

 

[Mattco26]

I think many more feature films are still shot on film than we think. I'm sure the huge special effects movies are mostly digital, but regular character driven movies are still mostly shot on film. I was watching the behind the scenes dvd stuff from Bad Teacher the other day, and the camera they were using for principal photography had a big old film magazine on the back, every scene they showed was being shot on film.