to all who worry about film being deadish

[Creagerj]

Technology that is dead after being replaced with something superior:

Looms
vinyl records
turntables
tube amplifiers
sail boats
paint brushes
bicycles
theater
radio
movies
film
analog watches
Hammond organs
airships
steam engines
wooden view cameras

It is sad none of these things survive today.

Thats whats is funny though, most of these things are never going to die. Why should film. Great point.

 

[tedwhite]

You all are making me nervous. I'm going to order 40 rolls of 120 tomorrow. 35mm? No hay problema. I've got 4 100 foot rolls.

My neighbor, Mr. Zander, has several Model A Fords. His daily driver is a 1931 two-door sedan in cashmere tan with black fenders. It's literally the car he drives when he needs to drive a car within a 60 mile radius (he has a modern car for long trips, but resists driving it).

I asked him about parts (spares). "Everything you need, fenders, doors, motors, transmissions, gears, windshields, it's just a phone call away," he said.

He thinks fifty miles per hour is fast enough. 50 was speeding in those days, he says. That got me to wondering. Such a relative term. You were speeding, says the cop, when you are going 35 in a 25 zone. You were speeding, says the cop. You were going 90 in a 75 zone What, exactly, does one mean by "speed"? Thinking that to an Apache Indian in Cochise County, Arizona, in 1890, fifty miles per hour would have been supersonic - impossible to imagine, mind boggling.

As, apparently, anyone can still get parts for a Model A Ford, I am inclined to wonder why do we fret about film?

 

[amateriat]

I imagine supply and demand will apply so as the demand reduces the cost and choice is where the changes will take place, even today you can buy a cravat in Boston, or a Schlitz in London at a price, having said that I’ve not seen GAF500 for a while

GAF 500...! Oy, consider yourself lucky!


- Barrett

 

[amateriat]

An added comment in this visit to retro-land. I never cared too much about older stuff, even though I'm fairly old myself. But there is one old thing that I'd kill to have. Does anybody else remember the Rolls Royce convertible that the main photographer character drove in Blow Up? I can see myself in that, golf clubs thrown casually in the back seat, Iowa Hawkeyes hat (worn backward) on me head.....couldn't get much better than that...

JC

Boy, have I got a new Bentley for you! However, you will likely have to kill for one.

 

[erikhaugsby]

Ted: utterly insanely OT, but is that your (MP? M2? M4?) that is used as your avatar?
It sure does look extremely loved, and I've wondered how it got to the physical point it is now.

edit: and what lens is it mounting? if its a 35 i'm inclined to believe that the body is a MP with 35mm VF on top...
meandering thoughts

may sound stupid or cheezy, but ohwell.

 

[tedwhite]

It's a loaner M2 with a 21mm Leica lens. Borrowed it from Matt Cook here in Bisbee, and he obviously used it (lends new meaning to the term). I forget whether it's an Elmarit or whatever (I don't know Leica lenses). Unless reorganization of the site has eliminated the photos in My Pictures, the one of a bunch of folks in a coffee shop was taken with it, a true grab shot. I was on the point of buying a Leica when I discovered the Bessa L and the 25/4 and I decided that was close enough for government work.

(I'm also using my Bessa R with 35/2.5. Poor man's Leica for sure and a superb lens).

Ted

PS: I just looked at the photo of the camera in my photos. As you can see, the lens is a 21/4 Super Angulon. The photo of the people in the coffee shop is a bad scan from a very good print.

 

[sf]

I would love to see some proof of that. If it was not prohibative in the early part of the last century when George E invented the stuff and the market was far smaller than it is today, why would it suddenly be expensive twenty years from now when production techniques are far more cost effective?

Oh heck, even before Georgy-E, people were making their own emulsions. I am sorry, but there is no proof the sky will fall. There is also no proof there will not be a market. Demands usually make supplies. Folks are still using the old view camera and sheet film is still available.

This fatalistic talk is not going to help either. I can still go downtown and get medium and large-format films. I can even get Polaroid film for heaven's sake. Fuji has released two new films this year. Films have also been discontinued in the past. Relax. Film will be here. Or are you saying the predictions I heard ten years ago that film would be dead in five years are true?

It is only partially about production efficiency. Also there are economies of scale, where buying 1000 tons of one chemical offers many times greater value per unit than buying 1 ton. Small makers of film - which we will see in the future - will produce copies of the older, loved emulsions, and will create their own boutique flavors - all for high prices based on simple laws of economics.

OR, companies might find that they obtain the best earnings overall by keeping their film sales strong (decent prices).

The most vital fact here is that the economies of scale, what allows film products to stay within decent price ranges, is partially due to the massive consumer market. That market is dissolving rapidly - and now, with Mamiya gone, the professional film sales market will accelerate its decline. What we see, from the perspective of the film companies, are shrinking sales numbers which means everything from economies of scale to production cost efficiencies to marketing and distribution efficiencies are diminishing . . . . this will cause prices to rise, or companies to fall. Both of these, we have seen.

It will also open doors for smaller companies to break onto the scene, as buying power becomes less and less of a major factor. Small companies (without enormous established markets) will be able to start produciton. This was previously nearly impossible. We might see some very interesting boutique film producers come into the scene in near years.

 

[clarence]

It will also open doors for smaller companies to break onto the scene, as buying power becomes less and less of a major factor. Small companies (without enormous established markets) will be able to start produciton. This was previously nearly impossible. We might see some very interesting boutique film producers come into the scene in near years.

That is a very interesting observation. I never thought of it that way.

Clarence

 

[ruben]

.... Small makers of film - which we will see in the future - will produce copies of the older, loved emulsions, and will create their own boutique flavors - all for high prices based on simple laws of economics.

Can't we recall the case of Cosina Voigtlander exception due to high prices ?

Nor should be dis-counted the probability that small makers in the future, provided with newer technologies and fresher state of mind may produce better B&W emulsions than we have today.

 

[sf]

Can't we recall the case of Cosina Voigtlander exception due to high prices ?

Nor should be dis-counted the probability that small makers in the future, provided with newer technologies and fresher state of mind may produce better B&W emulsions than we have today.

yup. For sure. Quality control will be a bigger deal for smaller makers without margins for error. Especially in the beginning.

 

[ruben]

SO WHERE DO WE ARRIVE BY THE END OF THE DAY ?

to four very interesting conclusions:

a) Big Money once a vehicle of Photography progress can turn into an obstacle as well

b) Film vannishing threat comes from the false assumption that its life or death depends upon Big Companies production

c) With the same strenght of speculation some arrive to the Doom Day of Film, we can bet upon Film Renaissance after freeing itself from the constrains of mass production.

d) Instead of liquidating for cheap our film gear in order to buy expensive new digital, we can take advantage of bottom rocketing prices and buy analog gems almost for free, like the Contax G system for example.

What nice a thread !

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[bmattock]

That's because I have held off punching huge gaping holes in all of your lovely theories, which are all without basis and void of logic. So go on and have your happy dance, you have solved all the problems and film will live forever now.

You guys are a riot.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Socke]

It will also open doors for smaller companies to break onto the scene, as buying power becomes less and less of a major factor. Small companies (without enormous established markets) will be able to start produciton. This was previously nearly impossible. We might see some very interesting boutique film producers come into the scene in near years.

The emulsion part shouldn't be that problematic, a coating mashine slower than 100 squaremeters a minute should be doable, too. You don't buy production mashinery like this at a hardwareshop anyways, so there should be a company capable of custom building one.

But then we come to the real problem! You need something to coat with the emulsion! And it better be flexible enough to spool in a 135 filmcartridge and thin enough to fit in the film gate. It should be reasonable clear for printing and an antihalation layer would be nice, too. And when we're at it, I want it within reasonable tollerances.

I know Agfa produced plastic film base material for several other companies. Efke and Foma where Agfa customers.
Don't know where Ilford sources the film base material, I don't think they produce it themselfes.

Glasnegatives on the other hand .....

 

[Toby]

BUT

If film production is down to a few boutique companies what happens if you don't like the film they make?

If processing is down to a few labs in the country where do you go if their quality control becomes sloppy?

 

[jaapv]

Isn't it a bit early to worry about that kind of thing,Toby? As for the second part of your question, the answer is simple: do it yourself!

 

[Sparrow]

This is how it works in a “dying” industry from the manufactures point of view, the first response to falling sales is to discount, cut costs and advertise (you’re unsure if it’s the whole of or just you’re share that’s reducing).
As the downward trend continues and margins shrink the general pressure promotes rationalisations in the whole sector, the strong buy the weak or the weak go under and you get their share anyway. That tends to restores your margins and allows you to continue trading for a time.
At the same time you look for niche, and specialist areas unaffected by the general trend to improve your market share and gross margin while down or upsizing the production plant to keep costs and sales in line, if your lucky you stay in the game if your not you sell it off to the Chinese!
You don’t have to stay the same size to stay profitable.
So the issue is the eventual stable size of the market, as that determines both the number of manufactures and the unit cost of their film.

 

[ruben]

That's because I have held off punching huge gaping holes in all of your lovely theories, which are all without basis and void of logic. ...Bill Mattocks

This behaviour doesn't suit you, Guapo !

 

[bmattock]

I know, I know. But I have a long history of taking the contrarian point of view and making people on RFF mad. I'm sorry.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[ruben]

This is how it works in a “dying” industry from the manufactures point of view, the first response to falling sales is to discount, cut costs and advertise (you’re unsure if it’s the whole of or just you’re share that’s reducing).
As the downward trend continues and margins shrink the general pressure promotes rationalisations in the whole sector, the strong buy the weak or the weak go under and you get their share anyway. That tends to restores your margins and allows you to continue trading for a time.
At the same time you look for niche, and specialist areas unaffected by the general trend to improve your market share and gross margin while down or upsizing the production plant to keep costs and sales in line, if your lucky you stay in the game if your not you sell it off to the Chinese!
You don’t have to stay the same size to stay profitable.
So the issue is the eventual stable size of the market, as that determines both the number of manufactures and the unit cost of their film.

If Fujifilm eats Kodak - that will be good news. If the Chinese eat Fujifilm afterwards - that will the best of all. They are a very prosperous people with the sky wide open. The day will come for the Vietnamese too.

Cheers,
Ruben

BTW PS:
Comerade Sparrow, are you quoting Das Kapital ?

 

[ruben]

BUT

If film production is down to a few boutique companies what happens if you don't like the film they make?

If processing is down to a few labs in the country where do you go if their quality control becomes sloppy?

Then a smart guy of the like of Kobayashi ("Mr Kobayashi" if we are to follow Stephen Gandy, and we are) rises and eats them for breakfast.

We all should understand very clearly that the line of people waiting for a bussiness opportunity at any level of photography, that line is so long that if seen from an helicopter we have had to crash it over Kodak's lazy board of directors !

This board is not making us any favour by keeping Tri-x alive by the same standards from 40 years ago. On the contrary they are a monopoly obstacle to a better Tri-x from other trademark. Tri-x is going to out live Kodak by far!