How long does film have?

How long does film have?

  • Film? Film is already dead! Long live digital.

    Votes: 5 1.4%

  • A few more years.

    Votes: 38 10.8%

  • A few more decades.

    Votes: 123 35.0%

  • Film will be around forever!

    Votes: 185 52.7%
  • Total voters
    351
I like film and I want to shoot film, especially B/W but I like slides too. At the moment I have 10 Fortepan 200, 3 HP5, 5 Classicpan 400, 1 APX100 and 20 Sensia 100 in my fridge. I'll get several Fuji B/W films next week from another PJ friend who'll never use what's left in his fridge and I ordered Adox CHS 50 and 25 for my first modelshoot.

OTOH, just 5 years ago I could buy a multitude of films within 10 minutes walking distance, now I buy online because nobody stocks film. There is one store left within 30 minutes walking distance who has Tri-X and Tetenal Ultrafin Liquid.

Kodak, Fuji and Ilford may produce lots of film, but they don't sell much here.

Oh, and what's left from the local Wallmart closed the minilab and threw out all film.
 
I don't think we can overlook the horrendous costs of digital archiving for movie companies. That, I think, will be a huge driver behind continued use of film.

I don't know enough about film production to know if that benefits film production across the board, but i wouldn't be surprised if it did.

On the troll debate, the more civil we are in these forums, the more likely it will be that we entice a greater range of viewpoints, which is always good. Smart-alecy, bad-tempered remarks ultimately limit debate, which is a shame.
 
Nokton48 said:
Bill,

It comes from Eastman in NYC, in a 400' or 1000' roll. I order directly from them, they take VISA. Or, you can buy "short ends", "long ends" or "recans" from the sources that supply the industry, they unload the left-overs from the Hollywood cameras.

I would suggest you check out the somewhat long thread running currently "Shooting Eastman 5222 in the Leica". The images you get from this film, are like stepping back into the '60's. Fantastic if you are wanting a "retro" quality in your work.

And........ It's Cheap!

-Dan
Click to expand...

I like the 'cheap' part. I'm not sure where I'd get a bulk loader for a 400 or 1000 foot roll - or even where I'd store it! But I'll look into it, thanks!
 
"I don't think we can overlook the horrendous costs of digital archiving for movie companies. That, I think, will be a huge driver behind continued use of film. I don't know enough about film production to know if that benefits film production across the board, but i wouldn't be surprised if it did. "

Very astute observation. So it's likely we'll have movie film, to load into our Barnacks.
 
Bill,

I don't use a bulk loader for this stuff (Eastman 5222) although I've got a bunch of them I use with 100' rolls. From a 400' roll in the dark, stretch your arms -out wide-. That is 36-37 exposures when you wind it up. And, you'll never scratch a bit of film using this method.
 
sitemistic said:
Riaz, in 40 years most people alive will have never seen a roll of film, much less be using it. It's a lot easier to coat glass plates than to coat roll film, even if you could get the base, etc.
Click to expand...

I would like to make glass plate negatives and then shoot with them. I even have a camera that takes glass plates. I scanned a bunch of glass plates from the late 19th century that I got in an eBay lot from Wales a few years back. I was amazed at the quality - incredible.
 
Nokton48 said:
Bill,

I don't use a bulk loader for this stuff (Eastman 5222) although I've got a bunch of them I use with 100' rolls. From a 400' roll in the dark, stretch your arms -out wide-. That is 36-37 exposures when you wind it up. And, you'll never scratch a bit of film using this method.
Click to expand...

I don't have a space that large that can be made dark. I live in a rented 9x12 room for now. But perhaps when I get my family moved and buy a new house...
 
Nokton48 said:
"I don't think we can overlook the horrendous costs of digital archiving for movie companies. That, I think, will be a huge driver behind continued use of film. I don't know enough about film production to know if that benefits film production across the board, but i wouldn't be surprised if it did. "

Very astute observation. So it's likely we'll have movie film, to load into our Barnacks.
Click to expand...


Don't bet on it. My day job is digital archives and storage gets cheaper every day. The diskspace they needed to restore Roman Holiday was unbelievable large when they mastered the DVD. Today I have more at home and it cost me less than 500 Euro.

A 500GB Harddisk goes for less than 100 Euros today, DVDs are more expensive. My mirrored 120GB setup from two years ago cost 250 Euro, today I have four times the storage for less.

Im november I set up a HP AIO storage device wiht 3 Terabyte capacity for a customer, next month I'll add a 6 Terabyte device which costs the same.

In 1995 I set up a Fast Videomachine HDR for an Artist, the video capture card could capture S-VHS on locally attached SCSI harddisks. The card and 1GB HD capacity cost some 40,000 DM. Today you get better video quality from a 400 Euro MiniDV camera recording on a DVD-RW or flash card.

Digital technology is evolving very fast. And it gets cheaper with every step.
 
I really got into photography with digital. The last digital camera I had, a canon 5d, offered superb resolution - better than film as far as I can tell (though I'm not a technical expert and could be wrong). Digital is great - so many advantages, and getting better all the time.

I don't have the 5d anymore - sold it. I use film because it's prettier and more real, and because I can afford it.

It seems like there are a lot of people like me, who get into photography with digital because it's a cheaper and faster way to learn, and then "graduate" to film. Digital has crushed film in the consumer arena but may now end up helping film a bit by turning more people on to photography.
 
I just heard the 'word' that Adray, the camera store I touted as being the last pro store anywhere near me, is closing in less than a month. Now I'll have to drive clear to Dearborn to get anything. That's a hike for me. Guys, seriously, I just found this out. That's three major pro shops in less than a year, in a city the size of the Detroit metro area - leaving one and only one left. Detroit is about 900,000 people, the suburbs add to that total quite a bit. Well over 1.5 million total. And one tiny pro camera store? Hello? [tap, tap] Is this thing on?
 
That's so strange-no pro shop at all? We have at least one in every city, often several, and I mean little cities and towns with nowhere near your population. Maybe it's more a sign of the local economy.
 
aad said:
That's so strange-no pro shop at all? We have at least one in every city, often several, and I mean little cities and towns with nowhere near your population. Maybe it's more a sign of the local economy.
Click to expand...

Could be - Detroit is in bad shape. But photographically, it is rich territory. I'm shooting a lot more here than I ever did in North Carolina. NYC has many pro shops, and good ones, as does LA and Chicago. But not so much in other places. I dunno. But I moved up here from rural NC where there was no pro shop within an hour's drive in any direction, was in heaven for about a month, and one by one, the shops are closing up. Just Detroit? Maybe. Maybe not. But it's distressing and sad.
 
Perhaps people like Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, of the world and other people at the very very top of the food chain, would see some value in continuing the production of film. I am not being funny here at all. I am serious. You never know when people like this, step in and offer support of some kind. It is a wild idea though.


MArk
Quito, EC
 
Interesting. I thought at RFF we would be a little biased towards film so I asked the same question at DPReview yesterday evening. The trend seems to be more or less the same as here. Only a few thinking film is dead already and the majority giving it decades to forever (for large format and B&W).
 
bmattock said:
When a film company like Kodak or Fuji shut the door on color film, B&W will be part of the deal. One tugs the other along in its wake.
Click to expand...

Instead of such sweeping generalisations and all-or-nothing scenario thinking, I think there is a case for a more nuanced futurology of film.

Look at the film sector just before the digital era. It consisted of several technological subcultures. Several of these - "ordinary" snap shot photography using Kodak Gold; consumer-grade Polaroids in front of the Christmas tree; press photographers; nature photography; sports; etc (the list goes on and on) - have switched to digital, but it doesn't follow that all the subcultures will completely switch to digital.

Some subcultures of for example black & white 35 mm film users 120 format, 4x5 etc could live on.

Perhaps we will see some innovation and entrepreneurship aimed at satisfying the lust for silver-based photography among some photographic subcultures.

It is an open question, I think, if that will happen, but if it happens and silver photography will live on as a niche technology, it is also an open question if innovation and entrepreneurship in that area will come from within corporations such as Kodak, or from smaller entities.

Also, remember, as someone argued earlier in this thread, that niche photography retailing nowadays is helped by the Net. So pointing the finger at disappearing film shelves at Wal-Mart or, for that matter, photo stores, is not the whole story. You wouldn't judge the book trade solely by what books are bought by the people going through the checkout counters at Wal-Mart; amazon, abebooks and others sell a book or two.

Then there's the question of distinction, of taste, of the wish to stand out. I am not sure what kind of evidence can be gleaned from looking at other sectors - given that each technology have its own unique cultural and economical history - but look at ... well, let's say watches.

The watch on my left arm is a Casio G-shock. It is reasonably cheap, it is reliable, it is digital. Most people use digital or electronically-controlled analog watches.

Still, Rolex, Patek-Philippe and their smaller and more exclusive brethren making mechanical watches are still around.

Some people apparently pay money to stand out, to distance themselves from us Casio G-shock-types. The same could apply to photographical technologies.
 
wilt said:
The watch on my left arm is a Casio G-shock. It is reasonably cheap, it is reliable, it is digital. Most people use digital or electronically-controlled analog watches.

Still, Rolex, Patek-Philippe and their smaller and more exclusive brethren making mechanical watches are still around.

Some people apparently pay money to stand out, to distance themselves from us Casio G-shock-types. The same could apply to photographical technologies.
Click to expand...

The companies that make photographic film do so in huge factories. These factories do not 'throttle down' well. They run at full speed or they stop. In some cases in former Soviet Bloc countries, we are told that they run at full speed one or two weeks out of the year, and then lay silent the rest of the year. Companies like Kodak and Fujifilm are going to find it difficult to hire experienced workers who work only one or two weeks a year, I think.

A Rolex watch is still a device largely made by human beings, and one can control output reasonably well - their problem is throttling up, not down, since to produce more requires more skilled artisans.

I do not think that one can compare the two technologies directly - they are made in very different ways.

However, even if one did... A Casio watch is what, under a hundred dollars? And a Rolex is several thousand for the cheapest model. If the economies of scale were directly translated, you'd have remaining film manufacturers making film for several hundred dollars per roll. That may indeed happen - and perhaps someone will pay that for a roll of film. Not me, but someone.

As Kodak has 'throttled down' their film production, according to news reports, they have done so by firing workers, closing plants, and demolishing them. Agfa's plants are likewise gone, the machinery sold to a South Korean firm that makes a different kind of plastic film (not photographic), and the buildings demolished. I do not know what Fuji has done with their plants they have closed in the US and the Netherlands, but the factories are closed, whether the buildings still stand or not.

So far, they are able to 'throttle down' by closing plants. That is a gross level of control, but not a fine one. When they are down to one plant, how then do they throttle down? We see the example of a similar industry in the automotive manufacturing world. When they cannot operate a factory profitably, they close it and lay off the workers. They do not throttle down to onsie-twosie operation - it just isn't possible.

I think that perhaps if a film factory were designed today, with modern concepts and the idea of being able to scale up or down easily, it would be a different story. But most if not all of these factories were built with early 20th century notions of maximum output for maximum efficiency - later improvements and upgrades merely made them produce more, faster, and with more precision. They just were not built to scale down.

My 2 cents. OK, maybe we're up to 4 by now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom