Movie film - going, going... Still here, maybe

Aristophanes said:
While Germany may an island of film devotion, the cost of film, developing, and mail order is approaching $26/roll in North America, with prints extra. This includes a Noritsu scan at low res. Add more for high res.
Click to expand...

Then you are using a very expensive lab. My North American friends are all using mail order labs with significantly lower prices.

Aristophanes said:
Almost all labs now use the mini- systems because they are cheap especially for dry print which has eclipsed optical wet print in the Americas.
Click to expand...

You are confusing dry labs with the standard mini labs using hybrid technolgy for RA-4 prints.
A dry lab cannot be used for film development, which you are asking for.

Optical printing mini labs were gone at the film boom days 15 years ago. Unfortunately, because their quality have been excellent, and often better than the current Mini-Labs with Scanners.

Aristophanes said:
Mail order is very costly.
Click to expand...

Here in Europe not at all, and my North American friends are using it as well because it is cheaper then driving to a local lab.

And if you think you have to reduce costs, then just develop the films by yourself. It is easy.

And as for your predictions about film: What you are saying have people like you already said about instant film 5-6 years ago.
They were convinced that instant film is the first film type to die.
The opposite happended: Now instant film is the first film type with a real survival and increasing sales.

If it is possible with instant film, then it is possible for the other films, too.
But that will not "fall from the sky". We have to work for it.
We = all of us: Film, paper, chemistry manufacturers, camera and other film hardware manufacturers, film distributors, lab owners etc.
And of course we film photographers. Everyone of us can inspire other people to try film.
If every current film photographer only get two or three others into film, we're save.
That can be done.

Therefore don't try to convince people that film is dead. Wasted time.
It is much better using the time to inspire others to shoot film.

That would be good for digital imaging, too: No one benefits if an important part of culture and art is dying.
No one has a benefit when all alternatives are gone and you are forced to go one way because all other ways are gone.
It would be less freedom, less variety and a lack of art.

Cheers, Jan
 
HHPhoto said:
Therefore don't try to convince people that film is dead. Wasted time.
It is much better using the time to inspire others to shoot film.
Click to expand...

Hear hear! Well said, Jan!

I'm afraid there are too many people in this world who enjoy the misfortune of others, and thrive on doomsaying making others miserable.

There are many experts on this forum telling us all the reasons why film is dead. They've been doing it since 2002 and before - so by now they know all the details.
 
Kodak has a vested interest in Kodak, anything Kodak says about Kodak needs to be viewed in that light. Kodak would probably be very happy to say their problems could not be avoided, than to admit they may have made a mistake somewhere.

Minilabs are becoming few and far between, but the prices haven't really gone up appreciably in the past three or four years. My local CVS still charges the same 9.99 for one hour photo they've charged for the past four or five years, the only difference is they've dropped the cheaper next day option. My local photo-finisher still offers next day E6 for $9.99 which is actually less than I was paying six years ago in another city.
 
I suspect the film photography will become a high priced boutique endeavor when Fuji and Kodak go out, and essentially B&W only. There will be a bunch of Impossible Project scale companies making film. $2 to $5 per exposure will become the norm.

How many of you diehards will keep at it is the only question. :)

G

Three more pack of Impossible B&W arrived today...
 
I'd be surprised if 35mm B/W was $3 per exposure even ten years from now.

Interestingly, accounting for inflation film prices are barely higher now than they were in the 1950s. So there's that.
 
Godfrey said:
I suspect the film photography will become a high priced boutique endeavor when Fuji and Kodak go out, and essentially B&W only. There will be a bunch of Impossible Project scale companies making film. $2 to $5 per exposure will become the norm.

How many of you diehards will keep at it is the only question. :)

G

Three more pack of Impossible B&W arrived today...
Click to expand...

I'll still be game!
 
Seriously. My local cvs has 20 some rolls on the shelf, and it varies up and down during a month. People are shooting film.
 
tunalegs said:
I'd be surprised if 35mm B/W was $3 per exposure even ten years from now.

Interestingly, accounting for inflation film prices are barely higher now than they were in the 1950s. So there's that.
Click to expand...

Fuji and Kodak are still producing film in large volumes. I said "when Fuji and Kodak are out." I don't expect it to happen for a while yet, maybe not in my lifetime.

But ... Kodak Portra 400 in 120 format is $6 a roll, processing is another $6 ... That means that with a 6x6 format camera, the film is already costing $1 per exposure.

Think about it.

G
 
Ranchu said:
Seriously. My local cvs has 20 some rolls on the shelf, and it varies up and down during a month. People are shooting film.
Click to expand...

Are they really, though?

Today, what reason is there to use film for those who don't actually appreciate film photography?

Don't get me wrong, I am on your side (want film to be available forever). But at the same time, if we ignore the trend that the beauty of film photography is lost to newer generations of photographers, then we won't be in any position to reverse it.
 
Godfrey said:
Fuji and Kodak are still producing film in large volumes. I said "when Fuji and Kodak are out." I don't expect it to happen for a while yet, maybe not in my lifetime.

But ... Kodak Portra 400 in 120 format is $6 a roll, processing is another $6 ... That means that with a 6x6 format camera, the film is already costing $1 per exposure.

Think about it.

G
Click to expand...

Thinking about it, but you initially wrote 35mm B&W would be $3 per exposure. That's what, $108 per roll? Don't see it happening.
 
kingqueenknave said:
Thinking about it, but you initially wrote 35mm B&W would be $3 per exposure. That's what, $108 per roll? Don't see it happening.
Click to expand...

Um, no. I wrote, "I suspect the film photography will become a high priced boutique endeavor when Fuji and Kodak go out, and essentially B&W only. There will be a bunch of Impossible Project scale companies making film. $2 to $5 per exposure will become the norm."

I said nothing about format, although I do suspect that once film is a boutique endeavor it will be natural for the people who use it to gravitate to larger formats than 35mm.

G
 
Godfrey said:
Um, no. I wrote, "I suspect the film photography will become a high priced boutique endeavor when Fuji and Kodak go out, and essentially B&W only. There will be a bunch of Impossible Project scale companies making film. $2 to $5 per exposure will become the norm."

I said nothing about format, although I do suspect that once film is a boutique endeavor it will be natural for the people who use it to gravitate to larger formats than 35mm.

G
Click to expand...

Sorry, my mistake. You were quoting tunalegs.
 
Part of me wishes Kodak would take over Fuji's chrome stuff, and be done
I also wish Kodak would just offer their cine film in prefilled cassettes and provide proper ECN2 processing for short rolls (not 100' of feet at a time)
 
Apparently a deal of some kind was made.

"On the heels of Kodak’s decision to continue its production of film stock after finalizing a deal with major Hollywood studios just last week, the venerable Martin Scorsese issued a heartfelt statement in support of the move, writing: “This news is a positive step towards preserving film, the art form we love.”"

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/08/04/martin-scorsese-kodak-film-letter/

Previously

"The company’s chief executive, Jeff Clarke, told the WSJ that Kodak initially hoped to enlist studios in a joint venture on its Rochester, N.Y., plant, but that proposal failed. The second solution, involving the purchase of mass quantities of film, became the consensus after filmmakers started to join the discussion (and personally lobby executives)."

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/07/30/quentin-tarantino-jj-abrams-save-kodak/
 
For 35mm you can cut your per negative cost in half by shooting half frame.

Now you probably wonder. What does a person do with a 18X24mm negative?

Make a small print of course. I don't go over 6X8 inch on 8X10 paper.
 
tunalegs said:
I'd be surprised if 35mm B/W was $3 per exposure even ten years from now.

Interestingly, accounting for inflation film prices are barely higher now than they were in the 1950s. So there's that.
Click to expand...

Because of the massive over-production capacity. That and lots of cheap cameras from the salvage market are keeping roll film viable.

What is really keeping Kodak roll film going is the Vision 3 movie capture product. If Kodak cannot make Vision 3 due to demand Rochester and all Kodak film products end. Kodak owns one plant that cannot scale volume down. All Kodak product comes out of that plant which cannot be sold due to an irrevocable environmental legacy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom