Kodak Film Production has Doubled from 2015 to 2019

[Larry Cloetta]

And almost all of those one hour places gave complete garbage results.

I remember being so disappointed so many times, no matter where I went, with the results I got back. But when I checked the negatives they looked fine.
It's actually why I started to shoot B&W as I would dev and print it myself.
Or shoot 'chromes as there was no 1 hour monkey to mess that up.

“I remember being so disappointed so many times, no matter where I went, with the results I got back. But when I checked the negatives they looked fine”.

Ditto.


“Or shoot 'chromes as there was no 1 hour monkey to mess that up.”

Well...........there was that time I was talked into shooting a friend’s wedding. Used a Hasselblad and E-6 film. Took the film to “the best lab in town” the next day, and they “were so sorry” that they processed it as C-41. But at least they gave me free prints! Colors were a bit... surreal.
Wife wouldn’t speak to me but they got a divorce a couple of years later, so no lasting harm done as no one wants to see the photos now anyway.

 

[xayraa33]

IN 1957, a roll of 135-36 Tri-X was around $1.15. Money at that time came in 90% silver. Today, 90% silver coin is around $13.20/$1-face, so the TriX actually cost 1.15*13.20 = $15.18.

Try gasoline. Gas was around 25 cents in 1964 (probably the same in 1957).
0.25*$13.20 = $3.30 / gallon equivalent.

In "real" money (still valid today based on gasoline at least), film was MUCH more expensive in the 50s and 60s than today.

Don't forget that in North America at least many photofinishers up to the 1990s in some cases, gave you a roll of fill once they developed your film and made your prints...this was for amatures and their family and holiday snaps .

Today if one has a cell/moblie phone like most people today...then there is no need to spend money on anything else related to photography from film, camera or development. Film is not necessary today to take a photograph.

 

[Huss]

Again, I was referring to not only increased price of film, but also gears and processing. No more are the local labs that does $3 a roll (at least to me). And how some of the cameras had became uber expensive...which we're all keenly aware of.

And yes, let there be no shame in saying that I'd like to have it "cheap". I'm not "refusing to accept" that $15 for a roll of Provia and another $15 for development is our reality. I'm just saying it's quite expensive, and there's a trend of it getting more so in time.

It is quite expensive. And it always has been.

As for film kamwahs being expensive, that is only a very very select few. There are literally hundreds of fantastic cameras that you can buy for pennies on the dollar. M Leicas always were expensive, they are getting back up there now.
I just bought a like new Nikon F4 for under $200. That is insane. How much was it back in the day, $2000? Leica R-Es are $150-$200 and really really nice pieces of gear. Back in the day over $1000? Nikkormats for $20. Nikon FM for $25...

Developing costs may seem high, but from my experience the quality of that is so much better than it's ever been. Fewer labs, but better labs.

 

[aizan]

The relative expensiveness of film has varied over the decades. Making a chart is on my to do list....

 

[Archlich]

It is quite expensive. And it always has been.

As for film kamwahs being expensive, that is only a very very select few. There are literally hundreds of fantastic cameras that you can buy for pennies on the dollar. M Leicas always were expensive, they are getting back up there now.
I just bought a like new Nikon F4 for under $200. That is insane. How much was it back in the day, $2000? Leica R-Es are $150-$200 and really really nice pieces of gear. Back in the day over $1000? Nikkormats for $20. Nikon FM for $25...

Developing costs may seem high, but from my experience the quality of that is so much better than it's ever been. Fewer labs, but better labs.

You're deviating: "some (used) cameras haven't gone up in price""they were much more expensive when new""development quality of the labs left are good"...all very true, except that they have nothing to do with the very simple fact I've pointed out that everything in general have became more expensive, in recent years at least.

It's just a statement. I see little point arguing about this.

 

[xayraa33]

Kodak, Fuji etc is not expected to subsidize their customers' lifestyles. That may sound harsh but the truth is their prices are NOT higher than back in the golden days when adjusted for inflation.
If someone is surviving on minimum wage then, just like at any time in history, perhaps film photography should not be a priority.

Or to put it bluntly, if you are broke how is that Kodak's fault?

It is not Kodak or Ilford's fault either way... They will charge what the market can bear above what it cost to make film, they operate not much different today than in the 1950s.

What I am saying that Many good paying jobs have disappeared and younger people make-do with poorer paying jobs and have high living expenses these days, at least in North America.

Unless they love the film shooting hobby to a good extreme to indulge in it and make financial scarifies to do it....then it does not exist for them or is very low in their to-do list. Film is not necessary any more for the majority of people.

 

[Huss]

...Film is not necessary any more for the majority of people.

Of course not because they all are using their $1000 phones instead.

Which makes it all the more noteworthy that film use is picking up. And that is not being driven by old farts but young people.

 

[brbo]

Sales doubled, prices doubled and the Kodak financial reports show basically none of that.

I guess all of the "market growth" goes to Alaris and resellers...

 

[Skiff]

At about the 6:40 mark, they interview Ed Hurley, of Kodak, who mentions film production at Kodak has doubled from 2015 to 2019. Interesting, I thought.

Of course very interesting and very positive news. But not surprising at all. We've got the data in about the film renaissance for years now. Numerous postings here on rff concerning that topic.
And even much better and more detailed info about it on the film focussed sources on the internet (like e.g. photrio).

It is also not only Kodak with increasing demand for the last five years, but also Ilford, Foma and Adox. But they to a lesser extent, because demand for color film is stronger increasing than that for BW film (all film distributors I have talked to confirm that, and evidence is that lots of color film types are often sold out). Fujifilm has increasing demand for instax film for 16 years (!!) now. And for their standard film for two years now.
Also lots of new film shops, film camera shops and labs in the market. The situation for film photographers is rapidly improving.

 

[Skiff]

Somebody (besides Lomography) needs to give a decent quality new film camera a go.

It's there. The following excellent film cameras are in current production:
- Leica MP
- Leica M-A
- Nikon F6
- DW Photo / Rolleiflex Hy6 Mod.2
- Hasselblad H6 with film back.

 

[Skiff]

In addition to the rise in film sales there have been a few other changes to make analog photography attractive to a new generation. Combining Monobath chemistry with the new LabBox allows users to develop film without a darkroom and limited space.

Nothing new here at all. That is possible for decades. Monobath chemistry is a very old concept, press photographers have done it back in time when they were in a hurry.
LabBox is not needed. You can use any film developing tank in combination with either a changing bag or the extremely comfortable changing tent. It is indeed even the much better alternative to the lab box because you can use tanks for two or more films at the same time, tanks with much lower chemistry consumption, and tanks which are much cheaper than the lab box.

Camera scanning is becoming faster and easier with devices specially designed for scanning film. Photo software specifically for converting negatives.

New additional and technically improving possibilities. Correct.

Much of this is driven by new users entering the film market. Film may not last forever but let's enjoy the resurgence while it last.

Yes, let's enjoy it. But we can be ensured that film will survive all of us: There are about 14 different film manufacturers worldwide, even new ones like Adox, IC and Film Ferrania. Would not be surprised seeing Lucky back in color film production in the coming years.
And film demand is strongly increasing.
There are only 8 digital camera manufacturers on the market. And the demand for digital cameras is collapsing (another -25% last year). Big player Samsung has already left the market.

 

[raydm6]

With film's resurgence, I'm noticing a lot of vintage cameras (and lots of them in questionable condition) going for seemingly inflated prices with inflated shipping prices to boot. Not sure there is a connection- supply/demand etc.

 

[Out to Lunch]

At least where I live today, the cost of film is not the issue. The real issue is the almost total eradication of the film infrastructure. Today, a small number of labs are trying to make a come-back, including for B&W but they have to sell at a high price in order to make a profit.

 

[Prest_400]

It's interesting to hear the steady decline that film was in for about a decade has finally reverted and I hope it proves to be positive with the film infrastructure.

With film's resurgence, I'm noticing a lot of vintage cameras (and lots of them in questionable condition) going for seemingly inflated prices with inflated shipping prices to boot. Not sure there is a connection- supply/demand etc.

There was a very interesting discussion in the following video about camera supply. Some "go to" models have becomed very appreciated and in some markets are indeed inflated. Medium Format has appreciated too and they talk about the "Japanese sellers" and change in that supply pipeline... In the comments there is a complaint about Mamiya 7 and Juho answers by saying Asian purchasers are taking them from europe as they are cheaper here.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RmTi4gH0nHI


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[xayraa33]

Of course not because they all are using their $1000 phones instead.

Which makes it all the more noteworthy that film use is picking up. And that is not being driven by old farts but young people.

It still is a fickle trend of up and down in film sales...once the novelty wears off or these young people go on to some other trend and or go on to the next phase of their life, like getting married and having children.. then it is the end of their film buying days. It is not necessary for image making today.

In the pre-digital photography years film was the only choice, for family snaps Instamatic users, serious hobbyists and for pros.

There will be a time in the future when film photography will be a quaint practice of the past as... daguerreotype photography is now, cumbersome, kind of weird ,expensive, not eco or health friendly and material rare and too expensive even just to dabble in it.

 

[Skiff]

It still is a fickle trend of up and down in film sales.

No, it is not. film sales are continuously up for several years. All types and formats: instant film, 35mm film, 120, LF, color, BW.

It is not necessary for image making today.

Correct. And also completely irrelevant. Because film is adding value to film photographers. Film is offering lots of characteristics digital cannot offer. And more and more photographers are looking for exactly these film characteristics. That is why the film demand is increasing, and not only with young, but also with medium aged photographers (lots of them are coming back to film; look e.g. at the survey results of Ilford).

 

[Out to Lunch]

Skiff, USA I gather, prefers to limit his film outlook to the back yard.

 

[Jamie123]

Nobody?

Not enough to keep the necessary and expensive infrastructure churning once digital took over, sure. But, “nobody”?

Well of course not literally nobody. What I’m saying is that in the early 2000s when it was still available it was so much of a nice product that there seemed to be almost no evidence of it still being used. But as soon as it got discontinued everybody cried about its demise. (Againc by “everybody” I don’t literally mean every human being on earth.)

 

[xayraa33]

No, it is not. film sales are continuously up for several years. All types and formats: instant film, 35mm film, 120, LF, color, BW.



Correct. And also completely irrelevant. Because film is adding value to film photographers. Film is offering lots of characteristics digital cannot offer. And more and more photographers are looking for exactly these film characteristics. That is why the film demand is increasing, and not only with young, but also with medium aged photographers (lots of them are coming back to film; look e.g. at the survey results of Ilford).

That will change with the course of time and with technological improvements and advancements that will digitally mimic film beyond belief in cameras and cell phones as an option.

After a while the pure digital image will be the nostalgic one to praise and wax lyrically over as the gold standard.

Once the old generation passes away and the younger ones are now middle age and with more pressing things to do and spend money on then it will be a trickle of film users left that will dwindle down to nothing with the passage of time and through attrition... and film photography will mostly be then a footnote in history.

 

[Corran]

That will change with the course of time and with technological improvements and advancements that will digitally mimic film beyond belief in cameras and cell phones as an option.

After a while the pure digital image will be the nostalgic one to praise and wax lyrically over as the gold standard.

Once the old generation passes away and the younger ones are now middle age and with more pressing things to do and spend money on then it will be a trickle of film users left that will dwindle down to nothing with the passage of time and through attrition... and film photography will mostly be then a footnote in history.

No.

Let me know when I can make an archival silver gelatin print in my darkroom up to 20x24 inches for gallery display from a "digital" file.