HHPhoto
Well-known
Exactly.
The current problem is the demand for movie film is still declining.
As for photo film, Kodak Alaris published that their consumer film demand last year has been 30% down (that is huge), but professional film demand has been 15% up.
What we need is a market stabilisation.
As soon as we get this Eastman Kodak and Kodak Alaris have the possibility to make sustainable plans.
To get this stabilisation we have to shoot more film.
And therefore we as photographers, the manufacturers, film distributors, labs etc. have to make marketing for film.
Cheers, Jan
Last edited:
HHPhoto
Well-known
In this generalisation it is wrong.
Material for film base is not a problem. Especially not concerning PET base, because PET is cheap as chips and produced in huge volumes for lots of other products.
You can buy DuPont Melinex in any quantity you want at extremeloy low prices. And the demand for film does not affect this product at all.
Chemistry: Ilford is now producing lots of their raw chemicals by themselves. Ferrania has a systhesis factory on their plant area.
The boutique film manufacturers often have very new, modern equipment (see InovisCoat, also Adox have bought complete new machines for paper and film finishing).
If you were right we must had seen that when Fuji stopped their movie film production. But nothing happened.
Cheers, Jan
brbo
Well-known
Doesn't really help me. A number of Fuji/Kodak pro colour films have been dropped since, none have been added from other manufacturers.
And, please, don't point me to Ilford/Foma/Lucky again. ALL of their colour films SUCK.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Fuji stopped movie film production in March 2013 (but they continue production of archival films for movie films, both film and digital movies). Since then only Provia 400X was discontinued. And that decision had nothing to do with the movie film stop.
Cheers, Jan
brbo
Well-known
Not only 400X (since 2013), but it really doesn't matter...
But, I want to point out something different. Since you say that any previous and future discontinuation of film is only related to demand (as far as I understand you it's really easy and economically viable to set a production of any type of film of any scale) the latest Hollywood film preservation attempt might just get us an insight into Kodak's thinking. If Hollywood does indeed strike a deal with Kodak, that would mean that Kodak would rather sell 1B feet of cine film at fixed price, let say $1/feet, than unknown amount at actual costs.
I can see a reason behind that. Kodak gets stable "demand", Hollywood will shoot more film, if they've bought it they might as well use it.
Too bad that such syndication/subscripton model is not possible in still film market.
Aristophanes
Well-known
We did.
Film prices have rocketed up in the last 2 years both for MP and roll.
Less volume = higher per unit prices. This applies across an entire product line within a company or across an entire sector. We know this because both Kodak and Fuji have said so explicitly with regards to slide film production.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Kodak is saying they require a certain floor of volume in order to keep Rochester open at all. So, yes, it is about stabilizing demand, especially for Vision 3. Kodak has a brain drain problem within all of this so a subscription model is unlikely because most of their product line now requires lab processing. There is nowhere near enough b/w film home developing to keep the rollers operational. They can produce all b/w film for a year's supply in one day at Rochester. I think one strategy they have for the plant is to try and get the other brands, maybe even Ilford, to use Rochester, so that is a syndication model.
Tri-X, T-Max, Ektar, and Portra all depend on a certain minimum volume of Vision 3 MP film manufacture, capture or archival purposes notwithstanding.
Kodak cannot sell Rochester because there is a continuing, non-extinguishable environmental liability. The cost of remediation exceeds the value of the land and facility.
HHPhoto
Well-known
So, which ones? Since the discontinuation of Fuji MP film besides Provia 400X no other professional roll film has been discontinued. All otherss had been befor this date.
Cheers, Jan
HHPhoto
Well-known
If you would be right then the prices for Fuji Instax must have been increasing as well. The color negative film base of these films is made on the same coating lines as roll film.
But the Instax prices are stable for years, not increasing.
Because Instax see an increasing demand, 20% last year.
So it is not across an entire sector.
You see the same at Ilford: 135 film and PE paper are decreasing, other products are more stable.They've done a differentiation between the products as well.
Cheers, Jan
HHPhoto
Well-known
There is no lab problem: We have enough lab capacity worldwide to develop 10x more film than today. No matter whether BW, C41, E6.
Cheers, Jan
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I agree, I'll shoot any brand if it comes down to it.
But unless we keep the demand at a healthy level, any remaining manufacturers would just cut corners and we end up with lower and lower quality film until the whole niche just collapse.
It's a vicious cycle that I hope to never happen to film.
I think it's happening, albeit at a much slower rate than anyone predicted. But look around, aside from those already knew why they use film, nothing out there is compelling for digital users to even try film.
Ranchu
Veteran
Other than lousy skin tones, blown highlights, and endless dicking around with raw files.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Kodaks' bankruptcy filing said otherwise. They said that large geographic swathes and major consumer entry points (like malls, drugstores) have now permanently lost processing capacity. Mini-labs do no one any good is they are in a warehouse and it is a cannibal hardware market. Across all of North America (all the Americas and much of Asia, really) the distribution and service infrastructure for mini-labs has become sporadic to non-existent. Much of the software has been archived with no development or updates which is a looming issue for the Frontier and Noritsu scanning modules.
We can have all the E6 labs we want, but there is no demand. E6 is not selling so even labs still making a go of it have dropped the service.
If processing is not accessible, film does not sell, prices rise.
We are rapidly heading back to Eastman's mail order model. Even Ilford has had to go all out to supply that model including scanning. We;ll have to see if that can provide a floor to demand and whether the prices are acceptable.
bluesun267
Well-known
Hopeful/Not Hopeful
Hopeful/Not Hopeful
One of the things first in line for Ferrania is an E-6 film to fill the painful gap created by Kodak killing E100VS/G/Elitechrome. Not as much for slide shooters since there's still Fuji, but it was a big blow for a growing circle of filmmakers. Pre-bankruptcy, Ektachrome emulsion manufacture was still under control of the Professional still/consumer (not Entertainment) division and they axed it entirely due to the decline in slide film sales even while the entertainment division stood by in disbelief. Ektachrome movie film sales were brisk, but the margin was lower. People passionately loved the 7285/5285 cine stock and it was gaining a lot of converts in the wake of Kodachrome. So much that Kodak couldn't fill even 50% of the Ektachrome orders in the last days after the announcement. I was there, and I have friends who got only half, or less of their orders filled even when they placed them the next day after the announcement.
This whole scenario underlies the existential split of film in the digital age involving three key issues as I see it: 1) the need to scale down production; 2) the necessity (or refusal) to properly market/recruit new users of film (including supplying convenient processing); and finally, 3) the esthetic qualities of the products themselves.
Kodak has, since the 80s, constantly re-tooled their color cine films to cater to the whims of the video/digital/CGI industry/"workflow"--easy scanning/transfer, elimination of all grain, low contrast and desaturated colors. Now today when they need a product that distinguishes itself from digital, they don't have it. Ektachrome was the last product that was highly unique (ie "difficult") and the color neg. films, for all intents, look so similar to digital, it's really a moot point for the majority of filmmakers (and most of these people do not debate, or care about, visual subtleties, unfortunately). Ask most any UCLA/USC film school grad why they chose this profession, and if they're honest, the answer will be "fame and power".
What these articles don't mention is that at least 80% (my guess) of the decline in raw cine film being sold is in color print stock for theaters. This is the cheap stuff-- essentially the equivalent of RA-4 print paper with an ISO of about 5, costs about 1/5th as much as camera negative, with a consequent low profit margin. So I don't see the numbers as having as dramatic an effect as they may seem to, as long as enough people still originate on the more expensive negative film.
But the whole thing is a conundrum I don't think anybody has an answer for. I only wish these Hollywood figures had made these demands BEFORE the majority of theaters converted to digital. When theatrical release is all digital, there's one less reason for originating on film. (Remember, the studio people who make these decisions are not people who think about visual subtleties). For as much lip service (and money) that is paid to the art of acting, directing, screenwriting, lighting and so on, I don't think the major classics would have nearly as much clout if it weren't for the unsung hero--the emulsion. New filmmakers wishing to leave a legacy should consider that "minor" detail.
I think Ferrania has the right idea, and I really do hope and pray they are able to achieve it with grand success.
A final conundrum, which makes me not so hopeful is the general state of the economy. Wages are simply not going up, yet the price of everything is. Film prices should be expected to increase, and manufacturers should be able to raise them to stay healthy, even if it weren't a niche product. But for people like me, who shoot for pleasure/hobby/art, if disposable income continues to decline, it may no longer be a matter of choice.
Hopeful/Not Hopeful
One of the things first in line for Ferrania is an E-6 film to fill the painful gap created by Kodak killing E100VS/G/Elitechrome. Not as much for slide shooters since there's still Fuji, but it was a big blow for a growing circle of filmmakers. Pre-bankruptcy, Ektachrome emulsion manufacture was still under control of the Professional still/consumer (not Entertainment) division and they axed it entirely due to the decline in slide film sales even while the entertainment division stood by in disbelief. Ektachrome movie film sales were brisk, but the margin was lower. People passionately loved the 7285/5285 cine stock and it was gaining a lot of converts in the wake of Kodachrome. So much that Kodak couldn't fill even 50% of the Ektachrome orders in the last days after the announcement. I was there, and I have friends who got only half, or less of their orders filled even when they placed them the next day after the announcement.
This whole scenario underlies the existential split of film in the digital age involving three key issues as I see it: 1) the need to scale down production; 2) the necessity (or refusal) to properly market/recruit new users of film (including supplying convenient processing); and finally, 3) the esthetic qualities of the products themselves.
Kodak has, since the 80s, constantly re-tooled their color cine films to cater to the whims of the video/digital/CGI industry/"workflow"--easy scanning/transfer, elimination of all grain, low contrast and desaturated colors. Now today when they need a product that distinguishes itself from digital, they don't have it. Ektachrome was the last product that was highly unique (ie "difficult") and the color neg. films, for all intents, look so similar to digital, it's really a moot point for the majority of filmmakers (and most of these people do not debate, or care about, visual subtleties, unfortunately). Ask most any UCLA/USC film school grad why they chose this profession, and if they're honest, the answer will be "fame and power".
What these articles don't mention is that at least 80% (my guess) of the decline in raw cine film being sold is in color print stock for theaters. This is the cheap stuff-- essentially the equivalent of RA-4 print paper with an ISO of about 5, costs about 1/5th as much as camera negative, with a consequent low profit margin. So I don't see the numbers as having as dramatic an effect as they may seem to, as long as enough people still originate on the more expensive negative film.
But the whole thing is a conundrum I don't think anybody has an answer for. I only wish these Hollywood figures had made these demands BEFORE the majority of theaters converted to digital. When theatrical release is all digital, there's one less reason for originating on film. (Remember, the studio people who make these decisions are not people who think about visual subtleties). For as much lip service (and money) that is paid to the art of acting, directing, screenwriting, lighting and so on, I don't think the major classics would have nearly as much clout if it weren't for the unsung hero--the emulsion. New filmmakers wishing to leave a legacy should consider that "minor" detail.
I think Ferrania has the right idea, and I really do hope and pray they are able to achieve it with grand success.
A final conundrum, which makes me not so hopeful is the general state of the economy. Wages are simply not going up, yet the price of everything is. Film prices should be expected to increase, and manufacturers should be able to raise them to stay healthy, even if it weren't a niche product. But for people like me, who shoot for pleasure/hobby/art, if disposable income continues to decline, it may no longer be a matter of choice.
brbo
Well-known
I thought that Velvia 100F was discontinued around the same time. So if in fact it was discontinued a day/week/month before... Hard to know with multiple rumours, (semi-official regional) announcements, press releases etc. Fuji gives. AFAIK Fuji announced exit from movie film business in 2012 and gave 2013/03 as a prospective date for the end of sales. They do the same when they drop films (film is discontinued but still for sale), although they do it quietly for still photography film. They probably think that something as obscure as still film is not worth the bother of an official press release. So it's harder to pinpoint the exact date of discontinuation.
But I'll say it anyway, I was wrong and you were right.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Mini-Labs have been quite late in the film game. They were introduced around 1983-85.
At that time, just before they were introduced, about two billion films p.a. were developed worldwide. Without any Mini-Lab!
Film can survive without Mini-Labs.
Currently about 150 - 180 million films p.a. are developed.
And besides all the mass volume labs on industrial scale (like Cewe, Fuji Eurocolor, Orwonet, allcop, dplab, Dwaynes, etc), we have all the professional labs (like The Darkroom, Photo Studio 13 etc.),
and also still lots of Mini-Labs.
By the way, service and repair are not a problem, because some companies have specialised on that (e.g.
http://www.saal-group.com/minilabs/
They are even producing new Agfa d-lab Mini-labs; and they operate worldwide).
Companies like Technolab, Colenta and Hostert are producing new machines for professional labs (dip-and-dunk and roller transport machines).
Talk to people from the lab industry and they all tell you that there is more than enough capacity to fulfill the demand. With the current lab infrastructure more than 1 billion films p.a. could be developed.
Mail order developing from professional labs will be more important in the future. Nothing wrong with that at all, because
- you get better quality; most professional labs do a better job than Mini-Labs
- mail-order is often even cheaper than using Mini-Labs: Using a Mini-Lab means having fuel costs because you have to drive to them, costs for parking, or if you use the Metro or Bus then the costs for them.
It cost time to go there, and time is money (in that wasted time you could do other more productive or enjoyable things).
With mail order just put it in the mail box and you have the developed films back at your dorstep.
Easy, convenient, time-efficient, cost-efficient.
For most of you it is a completely normal thing to buy your films online via mail-order.
You can use the same system for film development and prints.
I have three local professional labs here in my town, one is a Mini-Lab.
Nveretheless I use them not so often, but use mail-order and a lab 500 kilometres away. Because
- it is more convenient: the mail-box is only 200 meter away from my home. To my local labs I need about one hour to visit them, lots of time
- two days later I have my films back using mail order
- their quality is outstanding
- their prices are a bit lower than my local labs.
Cheers, Jan
P.S.: I don't want to make you envious, but in Germany for example to get your films deveolped with prints at "every corner of the street".
Because all drugstore chain shops here (more than 3500 shops across the country) are selling film (negative, slide, BW) and offer development and prints. But they don't use Mini-Labs but the service of the big mass-volume labs.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Well, it was discontinued before.
But it seems that Fuji made a very big last production run, because the film has been offered for a very long time after the discontuniation statement.
No problem, you are welcome. If we can generate solid information in a discussion we all can benefit from it.
That is the purpose of such a forum.
All the best to you,
Cheers, Jan
brbo
Well-known
Do they do 120 film, too? We have Müller, DM here and I tried to get 120 slide film developed through them. The film made a round trip to Germany and to my disappointment it came back undeveloped. Pretty silly if you ask me as I don't think that the lab that does developing for them (cewe?) doesn't do 120 film. Probably just because someone didn't anticipate 120 film developing and so it wasn't in the price list, they didn't develop my roll because it would be too much work to make it possible to charge me.
And this is a problem. I understand the thinking behind it. Why bother with 120 film/slide film/BW film/push processing etc. if there is so little of it. Just concentrate on what is in (greater) demand, right? Wrong!
When my mini-lab stopped developing slide film, I bought a beat-up Jobo and started developing slide film at home. C-41 too, of course. So they lost my slide AND C-41 developing AND scanning money (and yes, they went belly up 3 months ago). Fuji thinks that dropping all but one or two films will concentrate film demand on those two films. Sadly, it won't. A lot of users will just abandon film altogether. I don't use much BW film but when the last pro C-41/E-6 film is gone I will buy even less (or none). Users tossed their film cameras when Portra NC was gone. I'll do it when Ektar or Provia 100F is gone.
Now this is just my guess, but I think discontinuing various film types/formats just accelerates decrease in aggregate demand. And with that I just don't see market stabilisation possible.
When you see the heroic efforts by Impossible (even Lomography) you would think that Fuji and Kodak would at least try something. But all they do is drop film after film. Are they stupid? I don't think so. They have infinitely more data about their business (cost, demand...) than we do and they do know the end result. Are they just riding out the wave? It sure seems like it.
So Hollywood is willing to 'pledge' certain demand. How can still photographers do the same? Repeating the "shoot more film" on the forums is just silly. Tarantino's voice can reach users that represent 99% of cine film demand. You just can't do that with still film users.
There will have to be a carrot for film users that is better than a "we-are-dropping-yet-another-film-because-you-didn't-shoot-enough-of-it" stick.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Yes, they do.
If it did not worked with you, probably one employee made a mistake.
From time to time I am using them, but most of my films are sent to my prefered professional mail order lab.
Friends of mine are using the drugstore chain development regularly, both 135 and 120, and both C41 and E6.
You may be probably right for the colour film market. I see now a critical point in variety (lack of) as well.
It should not be further reduced.
In BW I think it is currently different. Prabably too much ISO 100/21° and ISO 400/27° films, which are cannibalising each other.
Especially with all this cheap Kentmere, APX New (identical Kentmere emulsions!!), Rollei RPX, Ilford PAN stuff.
Cheers, Jan
Aristophanes
Well-known
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.
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.
Mail order is very costly. All postal systems are under strain to increase costs as analog gives way to digital (e.g. email).
All we know from the Kodak statements recently and their extensive projections from the bankruptcy filing is that film demand is still declining, and costs per unit of production are rising, driving even more consumers away. There is no growth dynamic. It is now all about salvaging a floor to demand.