markjwyatt
Well-known
Maybe or maybe not, but it is not far off in any case. Remember we already have a lot of infrastructure available from digital cameras (lenses, shutters, exposure measurement, etc.). 3D printing only needs to supply part of what is not in place. 3D printing is a means of manufacturing cameras on a much smaller scale than previous.
markjwyatt
Well-known
How about a new Graflex type camera? Flexible, easy to work on. Want roll film, add a back, etc.
I think 35mm and MF cameras will also be possible, but a new Graflex would also be nice.
markjwyatt
Well-known
There a re lots of levels of technology available right now for 3D printing. The higher end is probably still pretty expensive, but this will change pretty quickly I suspect. The higher end includes metal additive, software, and of course know how. It may require some post machining to make it look nice in any case. 3D printing (aka additive manufacturing) is a technology that is going through rapid growth right now. In 5 years (which is plenty of time for now) much more will be possible.
Sure, it's definitely evolving, but it's also a matter of cost. A 3D printed part that needs further machining, might as well just be machined in the first place. 
HHPhoto
Well-known
The dealers tell me it is a gateway drug for lots of young customers. They get in first touch with film via instant film, and then see there is even more to discover in the film world.
We already have new film cameras: In the last years mainly lots of new pinhole and large format cameras and all the lo-fi stuff (Lomo). Intrepid is making more than 1,000 large format cameras p.a. now! And that just after their start four years ago. Other new LF camera makers like Chroma started, too. There are meanwhile more than a dozen LF camera producers. And of course all the new instant cameras from Polaroid Originals, Fujifilm, Lomography, MINT, Leica.
For future 35mm and 120 format cameras: I expect that in about 4-5 years to start.
It is not so difficult to start film camera production again for several manufacturers:
- Nikon is still in this business with the F6. Making a F7 is quite easy and cheap: Take the (almost) perfect F6 and just put the D5 (or then D6) autofocus system in it. Done. Extremely small investment needed. And they could start the FM3A again. No costs with R&D, only implementation costs of a small production line.
- Same with Canon: Take the EOS 1V and put the AF system of the 1DX II in it.
- Pentax: They should take the 645Z, take all of it but the sensor, and make a body with changeable backs for film and digital, just like the Hasselblad H system and the former Mamiya 645 AFDIII. That means also quite low R&D costs.
They also could take all the "non-digital" parts of the K1 MkII and replace the sensor with a film chamber.
- Cosina Voigtländer: Start Bessa III again, and the R4M / R4A. All the R&D costs have been written off for years.
There is not so much new capital / investment needed for future 35mm / 120 film camera production.
Cheers, Jan
I's all so simple!
jawarden
Well-known
For now 3d printing is good at showing what a molded part could look and work like if you actually molded it properly. And 3d prints today can be the final product too, assuming you don't expect much out of it. I saw recently someone was 3d printing spacers that allow 35mm film to be used in medium format cameras, and that strikes me as a good fit for current 3d printing tech, which is to say parts that are designed to do little more than take up space. Printing spacers? Yes. Printing a camera? No, at least not today.
The challenge is making 3d printing robust and attractive, like injection molded parts that are processed at very high pressure, optimized temps, with specialty resins designed for the job. It's unlikely that 3d printing will approach that for quite some time, but there is a lot of effort and investment currently with that aim in mind.
markjwyatt
Well-known
There are 3D printed parts in production already in aerospace for instance (where the cost can be justified, and of course not primary or even secondary structures). A lot of dental lab work is getting done with 3D printing already. Things are moving along pretty quickly.
Again, I would not propose to print a whole camera. Components of a film advance assembly? Maybe. A camera frame? Maybe. You can buy the shutter and the lenses. I am also considering metallic additive manufacturing here. This is of course much more expensive than plastics at this time. The cost needs to come down a bit most likely.
Much of the tooling needed to build a camera could also be 3D printed as needed. This is another current area of use (printing tooling). I would not propose printing injection molds, because of course surface finish becomes a major issue.
In any case, producing cameras with the aid of 3D printing probably is already possible now with some ingenuity, but I suspect will be very possible in the near term. Other technologies will be needed besides 3D printing of course.
colker
Well-known
Just look at film workflow: labs are small. Either BW, C41 or E6. It´s done by a few people in a smal place. There isn´t a big investment to have a photo lab.
Even if comercial labs shut for any reason, film can be developed by enthusiasts in their bathroom. Chemistry for mixing your own BW developers is available.
New films are coming from eastern europe. It doesn´t take much for a bunch of guys w/ an entrepeunerial attitude to look for companies in europe which could produce stock.
The so called film rennaissance happened outside of the big corporations marketing departments. It happened on the outskirts of industrial production. Social media blasted the news. Cameras were cheap on ebay. People need comercial opportunities outside the usual trap.
Digital looked cheap but when we found out 3k cameras were disposable trash in 5 yrs since their sensors were outdated, film looked like the real deal.
Not everybody wants to shoot bursts of frames. NOt everybody wants 12000 asa.
Mechanical machines have sweetnness electronics can´t give. Film, BW paper, have sweetness digital can´t give.
It´s doable. It´s here.
Even if comercial labs shut for any reason, film can be developed by enthusiasts in their bathroom. Chemistry for mixing your own BW developers is available.
New films are coming from eastern europe. It doesn´t take much for a bunch of guys w/ an entrepeunerial attitude to look for companies in europe which could produce stock.
The so called film rennaissance happened outside of the big corporations marketing departments. It happened on the outskirts of industrial production. Social media blasted the news. Cameras were cheap on ebay. People need comercial opportunities outside the usual trap.
Digital looked cheap but when we found out 3k cameras were disposable trash in 5 yrs since their sensors were outdated, film looked like the real deal.
Not everybody wants to shoot bursts of frames. NOt everybody wants 12000 asa.
Mechanical machines have sweetnness electronics can´t give. Film, BW paper, have sweetness digital can´t give.
It´s doable. It´s here.
markjwyatt
Well-known
To me the key issue is keeping a supply of film alive. Your points are correct. I suspect B&W has the best chance of staying around, but if we ever do lose color film, B&W will become very expensive. Losing color is a sign of a terminal state for film. Kodak bringing back Ektachrome is a positive sign.
colker
Well-known
Nothing is terminal at this point. Companies which are producing BW, Ferrania, Ilford and brands like pan street, they don´t have color films. They just do BW.
HHPhoto
Well-known
There are all sizes of professional labs: Small ones, medium sized ones, and even very big ones with several hundred employees (in Germany we have several of the big ones).
Most professional labs are doing C41, E6 and BW. And silver-halide prints.
No, not really. There is only one ortho film made by Micron and offered under Silberra brand which is new. All other films from Silberra are just repackaged Agfa (Belgium) films. Films which are offered for years by Maco under Rollei film brand.
New films (really new films) have been introduced by Kodak and Adox (Germany). And Fujifilm (instax monochrome). And Impossible / Polaroid Originals.
And maybe in the future by Film Ferrania. But Adox is much more succesful in implementing their new small photochemical factory. They already have lots of excellent products: films, photopapers and photo chemistry.
Yes, concerning standard films. But in instant film both Fujifilm and Polaroid Originals as bigger companies have been very active and successful in marketing.
For an increasing number of people: yes.
Cheers, Jan
HHPhoto
Well-known
We will not lose color film, the demand for color
- is much bigger compared to BW
- increasing.
Cheers, Jan
HHPhoto
Well-known
Important for BW are Ilford, Kodak, Foma and Adox. Film Ferrania has no product yet.
And "pan street": You probably mean JCH Street Pan. That is a scam: Very old, long expired former discontinued Agfa (Belgium) film with lots of quality degradation: Very high base fog and decreased film speed. At insane prices. It is a rip-off. Very bad for the film scene, because every buck wasted for this crap cannot be spent anymore for fresh film from the real and dedicated film manufacturers.
Cheers, Jan
markjwyatt
Well-known
If color goes this is a bad sign. The B&W companies can exist as long as color exists. I fear that if color disappears it would be harbinger for the death of film, but I could be wrong. It has not happened, and hopefully will not. As I said before, Kodak reintroducing Ektachrome is a good sign of a growth in color film.
markjwyatt
Well-known
I hope you are right (and for the moment, with Ektachrome being reintroduced, not to mention Fuji promoting their color films), your statement sounds correct.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Both Kodak Alaris and Fujifilm have reported increasing demand at last Photokina.
Cheers, Jan
The assumption is that there is a resurgence of interest in film.
What is the evidence for this?
It’s one thing to see old film cameras go up in value, does that mean people are actually buying more film?
The case of the Contax 645 increasing in value is directly due to wedding shooters following the lead of Jose Villa and Jonathan Canlas, and there was great business value behind that professional decision of moving to film.
Is there commonly available (reliably independent) sales figures for film stock?
What is the evidence for this?
It’s one thing to see old film cameras go up in value, does that mean people are actually buying more film?
The case of the Contax 645 increasing in value is directly due to wedding shooters following the lead of Jose Villa and Jonathan Canlas, and there was great business value behind that professional decision of moving to film.
Is there commonly available (reliably independent) sales figures for film stock?
jawarden
Well-known
I like the way you're thinking about it. Maybe source shutters and other mechanical bits from digital cameras and improvise the rest. It could work.
I've had a lot of experience with 3d printing, SLS, rapid tooling etc and have tried to be productive with it. It's been a frustrating and rewarding ride in equal measure, and I look forward to the time when a reasonably priced 3d print can do everything I want it to. It will happen eventually. For now I use the high end of rapid prototyping and the parts are fragile but amazing too.
Larry Cloetta
Veteran
No.
If there is, let’s see it.
It’s like Sasquatch, many people have seen it, but it was too dark too get a good picture, so you’ll just have to take our word for it.
It is however, safe to assume that Fuji knows exactly how much film (not Instax, film) they have been selling, and has acted accordingly.
If people feel better believing that Fuji has been discontinuing film stocks in the face of rising demand, well, okay. I’ve seen some convoluted explanations, with no evidence, attempting to explain just that. The most obvious explanation is usually the correct one.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.