Nice article on state of film 2017

[HHPhoto]

thanks for sharing, good read but I still can't understand why Japan Camera Hunter's film is on that list.

+1.
Probably Stephen Dowling was uncritical, has not done a proper research in that case and just believed the misleading marketing of Mr. Hunt.

Lomography kept film alive, lets be honest.

No.
That "Lomography has saved film" is a fairy tale told by the Lomography marketing guys. It has nothing to do with reality.
Lomo sales peaked already in 2011, and since then they were on a strong decline, and now stabilising on a very low level.
During the last years Lomography had to close lots of their Gallery and Embassy stores worldwide. And lots of their employees had to go.
Some of their cameras were discontinued, and no standard film models have been introduced for years (only Instax).

Lomo is now mainly surviving by
- selling Lomo Instax cameras and Instax film
- selling their 'art' lenses (made by Zenit) mainly to digital photographers.

Lomo was a very small niche in film photography before their boom from 2006-2011, and now they are again a very small niche in film photography.

The film revival is driven by real classic film photography, not by Lomography.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Ruffmeister]

This is a really good article and well put together. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Solinar]

Film is doing well... The same can't be said for the scanner industry.
Clumsy crappy scanners that requires tons of post-processing and fiddling, or, absurdly expensive scanners that gives good results (Plustek Opticfilm 120).

I would like to see Fuji-Film step up to the plate with regards to scanners that rival the old Nikon Coolscans.

While on the subject of old scanners, I keep my fingers crossed for my Minolta Elite 5400 and Nikon Coolscan 8000. The Nikon fits the bill for clunky - but it beats a flat bed Epson.

 

[giganova]

Even Barnes & Noble book stores have 35mm film! (Lomo)

 

[Nowhereman]

Film is doing well... The same can't be said for the scanner industry.
Clumsy crappy scanners that requires tons of post-processing and fiddling, or, absurdly expensive scanners that gives good results (Plustek Opticfilm 120).

I want a modern Kodak Pakon F135+ at a decent price. That would seal the deal.
I love film, but the only thing that prevents me from using film full time is the scanning process...

borge: I'm gearing up to shoot my negatives with my Sony A7II... 'cause I don't see much encouragement on scanning and the word is that using a digital camera is much better, the files are smaller, and it "just works"...

The Kodak Pakon F135 is quick but it's optimized for scanning for 4x6 prints, which doesn't interest me. The Plustek 120 does permit automated batch scanning, but like many other scanners, has mechanical aspects that are likely to jam up of break down often, particularly in hot and humid climates like that of Bangkok or even Washington DC and Tokyo in July and August. For example, I have an old Imacon Precision III (real optical resolution of 6300ppi and dMax of 4.2 — 2 stops more than the Plusteks), but I'm junking it because it requires extensive servicing of the drive mechanism, at least every 6 months: that is suitable for a photo lab but I don't want to make a career out of DIY servicing of a scanner. Even if I were willing to shell out $14,000, I wouldn't buy a Hasselblad X1 because it has virtually the same drive mechanism as my Imacon. New high quality scanners are not likely to come on the market because film use, while growing, is tiny.

The best solution I have found is to digitalize film using the Leitz Beoon copy stand. Using a Focotar-2 enlarging lens and a Leica M9 or MM, it takes me less than 5 minutes to copy a whole roll of 35mm film — and the quality is close in resolution and dynamic range to that of the Imacon. For me it also has the advantage the I'm a nomad, moving annual between Thailand, Paris and Washington. The BEOON is small and easily disassembled, so that I can take it with me.
_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

 

[willie_901]

What would motivate FUJIFILM to market scanners?

The market is relatively small.

FUJIFILM does not sell 135 format cameras or lenses.

FUJIFILM discontinued many 135 format films and shuttered its motion-picture film business.


Scanners are useless for FUJIFILM's most popular (and perhaps profitable) film products... Instax. That is, the Instax image quality is not worth of the effort to scan. It may be Instax wide prints are worth scanning, but at about $1 per print Intax wide does not seem to enjoy the sales volume of the smaller Instax format. This may change.

FUJIFIM probably released some new 135 format films. I sure someone will mention these.

 

[charjohncarter]

Hi,

Considering what we all feared/thought when digital took off, I reckon we've a good range of film available even though it doesn't include our old favourites. OTOH, a lot of the poorer ones have gone too.

But I do miss that Agfa reversal B&W film.

Regards, David

You are so right. let's hope it stays that way.

 

[Faintandfuzzy]

I would not be surprised if Fujifilm will bring back certain films in the coming years.
As stronger the film revival will be, the greater the chance will be.
Fujifilm is a very very big company compared to Kodak, Ilford, Foma, Film Ferrnia etc.
They are like a huge oil tanker. Decisions and new strategic plans do need much more time in such a company.
I expect Fujifilm to re-introduce films in 3-5 years.

Cheers, Jan

Kodak's film production dwarfs Fuji.

 

[HHPhoto]

Kodak's film production dwarfs Fuji.

Certainly not.
Fujifilm's film production has been much more successful in the last years than Kodak's:
- Kodak has discontinued more films than Fuji in the last 15 years
- Kodak did give up on several silver-halide product segments completely, instead of Fujifilm
- Fujifilm has smaller and more flexible production capabilities
- in 2014 Kodak was very close before stopping film production completely (their CEO Jeff Clarke said that several times in different interviews); Fujifilm has never had similar thoughts.

Film demand is increasing. All manufacturers will profit from that, including Fujifilm, which offers several unique films no other company has.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

Scanners are useless for FUJIFILM's most popular (and perhaps profitable) film products... Instax. That is, the Instax image quality is not worth of the effort to scan.

1. Instax is very profitable. And all other silver-halide products at Fujifilm are profitable, too.
Their digital camera production is less profitable.
Look at their last years FRs.
2. The internet is full of scanned Instax pictures. So there are lots of people who like to scan Instax (and Impossible) pictures.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

Film is doing well... The same can't be said for the scanner industry.
Clumsy crappy scanners that requires tons of post-processing and fiddling, or, absurdly expensive scanners that gives good results (Plustek Opticfilm 120).

There are good scanners on the market. For example the Reflecta 10T, RPS 10 M and MF 5000.
They deliver results a bit better than the former Nikon Coolscan V.
https://reflecta.de/en/products/list/~pcat.1/Slide-Film-Photo-Scanner.html

They told me last Photokina the demand for their scanners is increasing for years.
If you look at used prices for the Nikon Coolscan V, 5000 and 9000, then mint one are selling for more (!!) than their former new prices.
A clear indication for a very good demand.
If Nikon is clever, they would satisfy this demand with a new Coolscan VI, 6000 and 10000 line.

Personally I do almost no scanning anymore.
Because the classic optical imaging chains with slides (silde loupe and small lighttable, projection) and negative film (optical printing) are so much better in quality, so much more fun and have much lower costs.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

Also you have to have very young eyes when using loupes, and a lot of other optical devices...

As someone who is (unfortunately) not a young guy anymore, and someone who needs glasses, I must completely disagree with your comment.
Good loupes have diopter adjustments, and you can perfectly fine tune them to your eyesight. No matter whether you are using glasses or not when using the loupe.
I have excellent loupes from different manufacturers (e.g. Schneider, Rodenstock, Kaiser, Adox, BIG), and all give excellent results with my older eyes.
I also have them and a slimline lighttable with me at photographer meetings to present my slides. So lots of other photographers are also using my loupes at these meetings. And all are always very impressed by the stunning quality which surpasses every computer monitor by a big margin.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Out to Lunch]

The upsurge in 35mm film production is great....but I'm concerned about the wipe-out of the 35mm film infrastructure: in Saigon, most photo shops -many of them family businesses, sold their developing machines and closed their doors many years ago...

 

[HHPhoto]

The upsurge in 35mm film production is great....but I'm concerned about the wipe-out of the 35mm film infrastructure: in Saigon, most photo shops -many of them family businesses, sold their developing machines and closed their doors many years ago...

Peter, but there are labs in Saigon, right? Probably not so much as in former times, but some have been stayed in business. At least I remember some posts here on rff about recommendations of labs there.
The remaining labs will have increasing business in the next years.
I also know of lots of new labs in both industrialised and developing countries, which opened in the last two years.
Probably there will be more new labs in the coming years.
And self-developing and printing at home is also becoming more popular again.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Steve M.]

That was a fun read. Thanks for posting the article. It's nice to read something that is not rah rah marketing hype about photography, and rare these days.

Film will always be a niche industry, so the downsizing and elimination of some companies was going to happen no matter what. The people I know that shoot film do so because they understand the medium is capable of producing images that are quite different than digital, and most of them think those images are better. They're not shooting it because it's a cool thing to do, or trendy, or for a tactile experience. Most people are not really that concerned about photography anymore, or in having prints. They just want a way to get a quick and free image that can be viewed on their computer monitor or sent to someone's cell phone screen. Digital satisfies those desires.

At some point, these old film cameras are going to reach the end of their lives. Since very few new film cameras are being made, and the demand for them is very low, it will be interesting to see what happens to film then. If you don't have a camera to shoot it in.......

Scanners are not needed for film. My old Federal enlargers are capable of making excellent prints, and digitizing an analogue sourced image into a digital file is not something that appeals to me any longer. That was always the unpleasant part of my photography, grappling w/ a cranky and erratic (and expensive) ink jet printer that guzzled pricey inks, and I would rather do my taxes than fool w/ a film scanner's operation.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Kodak's film production dwarfs Fuji.

Does it? By what percentage or volume? Is that including motion picture products, or are you referring only to still film products? It would be interesting, actually, to be able to look at how much the different manufacturers have been producing, respectively, so if you've got a reliable source for that information it would be good to know what it is, please?
Cheers,
Brett

 

[Skiff]

Does it? By what percentage or volume? Is that including motion picture products, or are you referring only to still film products? It would be interesting, actually, to be able to look at how much the different manufacturers have been producing, respectively, so if you've got a reliable source for that information it would be good to know what it is, please?
Cheers,
Brett

If I remember right, Eastman Kodak recently published making about 200 million $ p.a. with film production.
Fujifilm published making more than 2 billion $ p.a. with all their silver-halide products including all films, Instax cameras, RA-4 photo paper, photo chemistry, BW photo paper, industrial lab operations like Fuji Eurocolor, lab equipment etc.

 

[Skiff]

At some point, these old film cameras are going to reach the end of their lives. Since very few new film cameras are being made, and the demand for them is very low, it will be interesting to see what happens to film then. If you don't have a camera to shoot it in.......

No problem at all:
1. Film cameras can be quite easily repaired, and there are enough cameras out there for spare parts spending.
2. The number of film cameras out there is very huge, definitely more than 200 million running film cameras out there.
From 2000 - 2007 alone more than 85.5 million (!!) film cameras have been sold.
Here you have the data from the Japanese manufacturers concerning film camera production:
http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/common/cr400.pdf
3. The market for digital cameras has collapsed in the last years and will continue to decline for some further years.
On the other hand the prices for good / mint film cameras will continue to increase in the coming years along with the film revival.
Therefore in the coming years we will see new film cameras on the market.
Similar development we've seen on other markets like vinyl / turntables, mechanical watches etc...

 

[Skiff]

Hi,

Thanks for the link but I have to disagree about viewing because, as I see it, photographs are for sharing and few people notice much about them apart from the subject.

I see that differently:
For hobbyists / enthusiasts it is mainly important if you like the picture and its presentation. As a photographer enthusiast you should be "egoistic" and use the best viewing mediums to please you, to have the best enjoyment and most fun for yourself.
Viewing slides on a lighttable with an excellent slide loupe and projection gives you exactly that.
Much much better quality compared to pictures on a computer monitor.
And making prints in your darkroom delivers better quality, too.

And I also regularly share my slide results with others in best quality, without scanning and computer monitors:
I am using the Kaiser slimlite plano LED light box:
http://kaiser-fototechnik.de/en/produkte/2_1_produktanzeige.asp?nr=2453

Excellent light quality, lighter and smaller than a tablet, very cheap. Ideal to show your slides to others out there at other places.
As loupes I am using mainly the outstanding Schneider 4x (for 35mm) and 3x (for medium format) slide loupes.
In comparison pictures on a 4k monitor look quite crappy.

Also you have to have very young eyes when using loupes, and a lot of other optical devices...

Regards, David

No, not at all. Just use a good loupe (with diopter adjustment - fine tuning) and you will get outstanding quality with both younger and older eyes. Even my 85 year old parents are enjoying my slides this way.

 

[kb244]

It'll be interesting to see if the resurgence continues to grow for color/slide film.
I see it being easier for B&W film to continue to grow especially with self processing.

It's nothing as grand as say Kodachrome coming back, but I wouldn't mind seeing fresh Plus-X and TechPan coming back from the dead.