Wonderful news from Ilford for us film shooters!

Tom A said:
What worries me is the supply of paper for wet printing. Kodak is already out of it (no great loss, they make great films but could never get the papers right). Paper is expensive to make (the highly specialized pulp used is not cheap), it is expensive to ship and "bulky" as inventory. The producers of it seem to come and go at an alarming rate too.
The inroad of ink-jet printing is taking its toll here - though for some reason, the paper with silver removed is costing more!!!!
Click to expand...

Exhibition-quality Inkjet is the same paper with silverless coating, and many painting, drawing and archival matting papers share the paper base with photographic papers - the raw paper won't vanish even if silver based photography would become extinct. And paper coating is relatively low-tech compared to small and medium format film - quite a few artists use self-coated paper, and tools for paper-grade even coatings are readily available for silkscreen printing.
 
I think it all depends on how fast folks switch to digital as technology produces affordable cameras that let them use their old lenses. Or digital cameras that look kinda like old film cameras. Or, until the current nostalgia fad wears off.
 
Pickett Wilson said:
I think it all depends on how fast folks switch to digital as technology produces affordable cameras that let them use their old lenses. Or digital cameras that look kinda like old film cameras. Or, until the current nostalgia fad wears off.
Click to expand...

For me it has nothing to do with cost or use of old lenses. I would have switched to digital some years back if it was cost.

There is a different look, and yes this can be re-created with digital processing but I'm not interested in that myself. I prefer the look of film out the box and doing something that doesn't involve the use of a computer to get the best results.

I use film because it is film basically.
 
Tom A said:
What worries me is the supply of paper for wet printing. Kodak is already out of it (no great loss, they make great films but could never get the papers right).
Click to expand...

I seem to have misplaced my freezers full of Medalist and Ektalure. :D

Of course, freezers full of Varigam would secure my retirement!
 
Taking a good news as a good news I think the different numbers one sees from Ilford and Fuji/Kodak are due to the fact that Ilford is only B&W and the others have the whole range. That means that Ilford already are in a niche market, and have been there for a long time, while Fuji/Kodak are still tributary of loosing all the film p&s and hollyday pictures that used to be made not a long time ago. So you can not extrapolate the numbers from Ilford to "film", maybe only to B&W film.
Regarding Kodak, I have the feeling that they should give up on creating end user products in the digital are, but go on in R&D is things like sensors and become a supplyer for the actual camera manufacturers.

Happy shooting,
Stefan
 
If Kodak really wanted to stay in the sensitized materials market they'd reintroduce Koachrome II, and in addition to 35mm make it available in 120 and 4x5.

If they could also once more offer in major markets the late afternoon pick-up at camera shops and local labs, fly it to a Kodachrome processing facility for overnight processing, and have it back at the dealer by 10 AM the following morning E-6 would be dead meat.

Kodachrome's archival properties would make it a big seller.
 
Well, Kodak couldn't reintroduce K-II even if they wanted to. K-12 process as killed by the EPA (and rightly so, IIRC,) so the best they could do would be to reintroduce K25 with the pallette and other characteristics of K-II.

As far as the premium level processing is concerned, that would only add to the red ink on the bottom line, putting further pressure on them to get out of still film altogether.

Beta was better than VHS, too ...
 
Look at vinyl records, there still around for hobbyists - but vinyl might out live cd's which were supposed to destroy them in the first place.
Film or at least B&W film will outlive us all - maybe the choices will be much smaller - it will still be there
 
You know, the commercial viability of film is essentially an unknown for most of us. We simply don't know. So many unpredictable and uncontrollable things impinge on a business's decision to maintain a product line or even its ability to remain in existence. Kodak's film facilities might catch fire. Fuji's plants in Japan might be hit with an earthquake. Either might be bought by someone or something that kills the film divisions. Digital tech might make an undeniable leapfrog advance around film.

So, use film now and be happy. Predicting the future is really hard.
 
Incitatus said:
Look at vinyl records, there still around for hobbyists - but vinyl might out live cd's which were supposed to destroy them in the first place.
Film or at least B&W film will outlive us all - maybe the choices will be much smaller - it will still be there
Click to expand...

Commercial bar to entry is low for vinyl records. Much much higher for photographic film.
 
I dont know if this has been mentioned, but i wonder how the price of silver will affect things. I was talking to an expert who thinks the price of silver is due for a glory run. If that puts the price of B&W film and paper up significantly it is sure to affect demand. Someone mentioned $25-30 a roll of trix, yeah, that would have me reaching for a film camera once or twice a year tops, and the negs would be scanned not printed on silver paper. I love film, but I dont neeeeed it, most of my work is digital, film is more a hobby for me, increased costs at the wrong time could be bad all round. Truth be told I can produce a much higher level print per effort with digital, and much higher volume. I can do 10 9.5/10s from digital for every one 10/10 on film. That does count for something, at least for me. (ok so I am no artist) Film and digital are different, I would not say one is better than the other without conditions attached.

I was happy to see at a yearly camera show the number of young people buying film cameras to use, when a few years ago at the same show, anything digital was the hot item.
Digital has introduced a lot of people to photography who are now experimenting with film. Some will give up on it and some might take it further.
As a 95% digital user, I sometimes wish it was ALL film still.
Maybe in ten years we will be using chinese black market film and mixing our own developer from secret stocks of banned chemicals
 
bmattock said:
Commercial bar to entry is low for vinyl records. Much much higher for photographic film.
Click to expand...

Making a record in terms of "taping music to have someone else cut it to vinyl and press an edition" is. But that is more like having someone photograph your wedding. Once it comes to owning and using your own cutter and press, the whole vinyl process is magnitudes above the complexity and price of LF photography. And it requires an industry to supply consumables (acetates, chisels, vinyl granulate and inner sleeves) as well.

Sevo
 
sevo said:
Making a record in terms of "taping music to have someone else cut it to vinyl and press an edition" is. But that is more like having someone photograph your wedding. Once it comes to owning and using your own cutter and press, the whole vinyl process is magnitudes above the complexity and price of LF photography. And it requires an industry to supply consumables (acetates, chisels, vinyl granulate and inner sleeves) as well.

Sevo
Click to expand...

A few years back, I read a story in 'No Depression' magazine about a couple who wanted to get into the LP record-stamping business. They scrimped and saved and bought used gear, and for about $50,000 USD, they managed to do it. I would not believe that a person could start a commercial film-coating business for that amount of money, or even for 10 times that amount of money. This is why I say that the bar to entry is higher for making film. Yes, a couple on a small budget can go into business and stamp LP records in their garage as a small business venture. Make film? No.
 
bmattock said:
No. There is a type of ADOX film produced in Canada, but they do not make it - they package it. It's traffic surveillance film, as I understand it.



I do not know if Bergger makes their own film or not. I have read that it was rebranded Forte. No idea.



ORWO does not manufacture film. The word 'producing' means someone else makes it for them.
Click to expand...
[/quote]


I bought some of their WEP Photo Linen, do not know who else makes it. I was told they were using Agfa formulas, but it is getting to be long ago.

I still consider it a lot of countries, considering the major brands were from about four countries in the height of film usage.

John
 
While cruising the net, I found this page (from a fellow Dutchman, in English) that very thoroughly explains why film should be around for years to come.

The guys at Gandolfi will love this, but I'm a bit sad with my Leicas and 3200 dpi scanner :(

Nonetheless, its a very good read and it proves the existence rights of film!
 
Last Sunday there was smallish Swapmeet here in Vancouver. About 40 tables of "stuff". Some digital, some film. Watching people walking around 'fondling" stuff was enlightening. The guys were chasing bargain DSLR's and asking questions about Mp, sensor size etc.
The women were snapping up cameras like vintage Bolsey's, Argus "bricks" and even folding 6x6/6x9cm cameras. It wasen't "oh, this is cute" at all - they knew what they wanted and how to use them. There were some cross-overs looking for Dslr lenses and film cameras too.
I did not bring a huge amount, some extra Nikon F's with lenses and various finders (waist level, prism and the usual "dead" Photomic) I brought 4 - sold three ( at around $220/each). The 4th one had no finder on it and the mirror was erratic. No taker so I took it back home and, as it turns out, the mirror is a bit slow, but speeds are OK - so it is now a dedicated body for a 12f5.6 F-mount Heliar. I am happy it did not sell (for $80).
One guy bought one of my F's for his girlfriend. F (#6477xxx), with a dented prism and a 55f3.5 Micro Nikkor and the PK ring. That was what she wanted!!!
 
Trius said:
I seem to have misplaced my freezers full of Medalist and Ektalure. :D

Of course, freezers full of Varigam would secure my retirement!
Click to expand...


For a bizarre moment there I could have sworn that said 'viagra' ... then I read more carefully! :D
 
CLE-RF said:
While cruising the net, I found this page (from a fellow Dutchman, in English) that very thoroughly explains why film should be around for years to come.

The guys at Gandolfi will love this, but I'm a bit sad with my Leicas and 3200 dpi scanner :(

Nonetheless, its a very good read and it proves the existence rights of film!
Click to expand...

It demonstrates that film is still superior to digital technology in many ways.

That means nothing to its survival. What matters is only what people buy. People are no longer buying film in any significant quantity. End of story.
 
Yesterday I was hoping that one of the chain discount drugstores would have a sale on color film listed in Sunday's newspaper. Sure enough, CVS had four-packs of 24 exp. on sale, starting at $4.99 for the ISO 200. Supposedly the stuff is made by Fuji. I picked up five packages (twenty rolls). It's more than good enough for some of the things I do on my blog http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom