The ongoing mystery: how long will 35mm film be available?

<p>This is a fascinating thread. What puzzles me is why so few people point out what I consider to be the only remaining glaring weakness of digital--highlight gradation. Once they have that figured out and can truly imitate the curve and latitude of 35 mm color print film, why do I want to use film? For the tactile experience? OK, I get that. If you just plain love it--especially souping it and tweaking chemicals, making "real" prints in silver--I definitely get that. But to say that digital cannot and will not ever equal film in the final print quality, I think that's hogwash. Digital is phenomenal and post processing makes so many looks possible at the click of a mouse it's a boon to creativity. Add to that the incomparable ability to shoot high ISO, different ISO in an instant, color or b & w in an instant...come on--I love film but digital simply offers too many advantages. That said, I don't see any reason why film can't remain a cottage industry because lots of people DO love it. But in terms of actual visual quality, it's hard to justify 35 mm film. Large format is something else entirely. I have no doubt there will be large format films till the end of time.</p>

<p>It's funny that such a post based on a absurd rumor keeps going and going... Just wanted to add some interesting (think so) facts to this. I'm quite sure that behind these rumors are big digital cameras manufactures, trying to grab the remaining market (like the "undecided" voters, who haven't choose Nikon or Canon yet! :-) Anyway, dont believe at all that Fuji, or even Kodak will stop production. Fuji invested in the film department last year, and it's going to send to market next month a new film MF camera - the GF670W Professional -wich mean also good news for MF film; and Kodak, Kodak has announced last week that Kodak Professional Portra 160 will be released starting in March 2011 in: 35mm, 120/ 220, 4×5 and 8×10. About scanners, Reflecta is going to send to market in June, a new dedicated film scanner, the MF 5000. So, has you can see, the film market is still moving... despite the digital barks :-)<br>

</p>

 

From the quatrains (I forget which one) of Nostradamus -

 

"In the second decade of the second millennium the yellow father of the west will abandon all. Help beguiled through conversion."

 

You saw it here first.

<blockquote>

<p>"35mm film" (including the mystery meat in disposables that the consumer has absolutely no idea what size it is) will disappear from general consumer applications before larger roll and sheet films for the devout specialists. Mostly because the consumer that supports the manufacturing volume neither knows nor cares about film size nor do they seem to believe or need to believe the faintly echoing cries from those who still carry the flickering torch that film is better than digital. They just need something that will take a picture when they want it to.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>However, the "general consumer" of 35mm film stock isn't photographers, it motion pictures. One feature length film uses more 35mm film stock than I have in my entire lifetime, easily. Unless the film uses 70mm or some other film stock.<br>

Yes, many film makers are going digital (and sometimes, especially for commercials or very independent films, they do use DSLRs because they are so cheap), but many are staying with film because they feel digital sucks in comparison. If every theatre goes digital, however, that will suck.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>- Consumer digital P&S digital cameras will shrink or disappear before film. This market is driven by convenience with no regard to quality (or they would be using a compact 35mm film) so they will soon prefer phones to a digital P&S.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Too late. The digital P&S market is already drying up because everyone prefers their phones. Why use a P&S when your new phone has a 8MP camera in it! Never mind that the lens is smaller than half a dime and the sensor can basically fit on a pin head, it's full of marketing-goodness-8MP!<br>

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/04/technology/04camera.html<br>

P&S are down 24% since 08 (DSLRs are up 29% since 09). The "most used" camera on Flickr is an iphone...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's funny that such a post based on a absurd rumor keeps going and going.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's even funnier that no one mentioned any rumor, at all.</p>

<p>Sure, film might be available, but what about chemicals and labs? If there's a small market for film, there's probably an even smaller market for chemicals to develop it at home. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, I think we will run out of 35mm cameras in working order, before we run out of film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You might. I have enough for several lifetimes!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...But in terms of actual visual quality, it's hard to justify 35 mm film...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Harry, <em>your opinion</em>. Many of us who use it competently may disagree, and I think 35mm is often unfairly maligned in general on these forums. In the real world, in most situations I am interested in and encounter, I beg to differ that it cannot produce "visual quality". I am working on framing a print right now made from current Kodak negative film, that at 12" by 18" is very sharp where it should be, and has excellent tonalities. Of course it was made with a good lens and with good technique. It certainly does not seem to be lacking technical quality at that size, at least none that any discerning, experienced, normal individual would see. </p>

<p>Sure, in extreme low light, digital's high iso abilities (and flexibility) can make a meaningful difference, but depending on how often one photographs in that light, this can be a minor advantage. I would like to see Kodak come out with a 1000 or higher iso color negative film; having that would negate <em>any</em> real world disadvantage that film may now have for me, as compared with digital. All else, for me, argues for film.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Fuji invested in the film department last year, and it's going to send to market next month a new film MF camera - the GF670W Professional -wich mean also good news for MF film; and Kodak, Kodak has announced last week that Kodak Professional Portra 160 will be released starting in March 2011 in: 35mm, 120/ 220, 4×5 and 8×10. About scanners, Reflecta is going to send to market in June, a new dedicated film scanner, the MF 5000. So, has you can see, the film market is still moving... despite the digital barks :-)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Right on, Nuno:)! </p>

<blockquote>

<p>... One thing bothers me though. In a few years when Nikon no longer supports repair on cameras like the F5 and F100 who is going to fix it? Sure it's still easy to get mechanical cameras repaired. But these electronic cameras could become bookends I'm afraid..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael, No offense, but that sounds like a red herring. I suppose this could be a problem, but I know a repairman that is only in his forties, very experienced, and can fix them. Sure, I suppose parts could be an issue if Nikon's determined not to supply them. But how often do they really break? I have a much "cheaper" early 90's Nikon "amateur" body that is used regularly, and has never had a problem. They are so inexpensive, that I have two more, one I bought about two years ago, new, and in its original box for $50.</p>

<p>Hi Jeff, glad for your insight. I am still curious, though, other than the annoying tendency of digital to blow out the highlights with the slightest overexposure, how is a final image from a top-notch full-frame DSLR inferior to one from a 35 mm negative? Don't get me wrong, I hope for the sake of film users that film is around for a long time. I miss souping my b & w film. I just doubt the image quality advantage of 35 mm over full-frame DSLR's. Even as far as pleasing grain, there's enough sophisticated software out now that, at normal viewing distances at least, a skillfully processed digital image can emulate film quite nicely. I guess I'm just looking for an education on this because I honestly can't see it in the final images. There's no doubt that on a microscopic level, they're just not the same, but how does that translate to the paper/screen at normal viewing distance? Thanks for any additional insight.</p>

<p>Nice to see Herr Weinberg appear here again; are you the retired professor from the Plains? I think we have exchanged barbs here before, when I travelled here under a different moniker (an immoderate moderator kicked me off here for making snide remarks about another moderator who was an extreme photographic cyberhead). Anyway, I love your comment. As for the remainder, I'm going to keep my aged but still Ex+++ N90 and slap the old 50 on it for times when I want to use film (mostly Ilford HP-5, I imagine), sell the F100, and purchase a new digital body w/some DX/FX lenses. I feel that I am just bowing to the inevitable. Ah, the vicissitudes of fate in the marketplace. Well, at least no more buying film and paying rising costs for processing E6 (I send it currently to some lab that will provide plastic mounts). I have three slide projectors, of which one is a classic Leitz Pradolux RT-300 (the one that used the Kodak Carousel trays, built by Singer, I think). I suspect I'll market it. Any of you film enthusiasts still project slides? If so, I'll make you a nice deal on the Pradolux. LN- condition with the original Leitz luggage-style case and its metal clasp locks. Thanks for the many informative responses. Yours, Shane Usary.</p>

<p>Hi Jeff, thanks, nice to see you again. I've been thinking today about that celllphone cameras, and I think it's an interesting subject for discussion, even for a Wedsday Pic, or Friday or whatever. Acctually I use more often my mobile camera then any other (digital or film). Anyone knows how to start a new Forum?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... I am still curious, though, other than the annoying tendency of digital to blow out the highlights with the slightest overexposure, how is a final image from a top-notch full-frame DSLR inferior to one from a 35 mm negative? Don't get me wrong, I hope for the sake of film users that film is around for a long time. I miss souping my b & w film. I just doubt the image quality advantage of 35 mm over full-frame DSLR's. Even as far as pleasing grain, there's enough sophisticated software out now that, at normal viewing distances at least, a skillfully processed digital image can emulate film quite nicely. I guess I'm just looking for an education on this because I honestly can't see it in the final images...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Harry, I wouldn't say that the "final image from a top-notch full-frame DSLR" would be "inferior". That would be a subjective opinion, unless we're talking about those very low light situations without flash, perhaps. For me though, digital capture seems to often look "clinical" under that sort of lighting, but again, perhaps that's subjective.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...There's no doubt that on a microscopic level, they're just not the same, but how does that translate to the paper/screen at normal viewing distance? Thanks for any additional insight.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Film translates quite beautifully to the paper at normal viewing distances. If you choose not to believe this, visit any major museum containing prints by the greats of the 20th century.</p>

<p>I think what you're so concerned about touches upon the underlying issue of so many. That is, a preoccupation with owning the latest, greatest technology, and the belief that doing so will positively, absolutely confer advantage onto the owner. I believe that we need only a certain level of photographic equipment, and that progress is achieved by dedication, passion, and experience. I'm very suspect of those who stress technology and equipment so much... I don't want to see film go away because of this keep-up-with-the-Jones mentality, although I'm sure that much of the industry profits by seeking to marginalize film photography. I have a quality scanner, and I think that this gives me the best of both worlds. Without going into all of the myriad reasons that I prefer film photography, as so many of us have stated them over and over previously, a very succinct answer is, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". And of course, film technology continues to improve, as evidenced by Kodak's new refinements. Hope that helps.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> ... I feel that I am just bowing to the inevitable...</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That's a sad, man. Hope you re-think it! I'm scared of those DX/FX things. 'Specially in a dark concert!</p>

<p>Hi Nuno, Sounds like you should talk to Josh Root about that new cell forum:)!</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

 

<p>You <em>are</em> da man, Les!!</p>

<p>Just what I used Yesterday. :-)<br>

<img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5131/5470493118_1c23841826_z.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="480" /></p>

Ilford HP5 & Ektar 100 should keep my F5 fed for decades to come!

<p><em>I don't think so. A few big name directors have stated that they will not use digital capture and in any case, it's not the initial shooting that uses lots of film, it's the copies made for distribution.</em></p>

<p>A "few" big name directors cannot support the film industry. And every local theater I can think of has moved to digital projection. I don't know what the stats are for the industry as a whole, but I can't imagine film projection lasting much longer due to the distribution costs and the push for 3D.</p>

<p>I'm not sure how the film industry will shake out after movie production completes its transition to digital, but it certainly won't be the same as it is today.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The digital P&S market is already drying up</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe so, but the local drug store is now offering disposable <em>digital</em> P&S cameras. Just bring it back to the store for a CD and prints.</p>

<p>Edit: I said <em>offering</em>, please note. I have no idea if they are <em>selling</em> or not.</p>

<p>I think film manufactures like Kodak & Fuji will stop making 35mm rolls. Because this segment is mostly amateur users. Now they (amateur) start using DSLR or Good P&S cameras and are happy with that. Kodak & Fuji will keep producing 120 & 4x5 format films. So, get one 120 SLR film camera now !</p>

<p> I worry about the film thing all the time. I do worry about the camera's getting older also. Every day some of them hit the trash can someplace. </p>

<p>I don't worry about it much.<br>

<img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4133/5006807683_b4b77cd60f.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>In the USA the largest cinema company is Regal with 6775 screens. They will be all digital by 2014.</p>

<p>The second largest is AMC with 5000 screens. They will be all digital by 2012.</p>

<p>The third largest is Cinemark with 4900 screens. They do not give a date but say there are making a continued transition to digital.</p>

<p>Personally I am not worried. I figure there will always be B&W. At any rate I am more interested in photography as a whole and not so enamored with media types.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If they had perhaps developed means for photo processing machines at one hour labs in useing films for making high resolution positive or negative copies of digital images on film strips, as a means of additional backup of treasured images, I think films would have sustained a better market. While the technology is available today to have digitally images copied into Ektachrome slides, to my knowledge it's fairly expensive and not broadly available. I'm not sure if one can have their digital images copied onto print films in the form of negatives, but I imagine it is done. Inkjet prints alone, while today more archival and lightfast, likely could not be used for making a high resolution copy of the images printed on them, should somehow the original digtal file of the image had become lost or unreadable.   <br><br>

 

If Kodak were to offer such services through their Easy Share Gallery alone that was more affordable and easily available, I for one would have nearly a decades worth of digital images that I would want to duplicate into negatives or slides. I imagine many magazines and government agencies would also seek to have a decades worth of digital images stored on disk duplicated on film for archival backup. With what so many spend in money and effort in capturing their images, I imagine most digital photographers would want to have some of their best and most prized digital images duplicated on film rather than to soley rely on a disk or flash card for which their stored images are not tangible to be viewed with the eye alone.<br><br>

 

 

Some might be surprised to know that the Library of Congress today still uses analog reel-to-reel tape for making archival copies of audio works which are being entered and cataloged into the library. By their standards, digital means of recording and by which means it can be played, is ever changing and not a reliable means over the long term. Not without routinely transferring the data onto the newer and adapted means within a decades time.                </p>

<p>The last Super-8 movie camera rolled off it's assembly line 25 years ago. As of 5:00 AM today B&H carries 4 types of Super-8 films.</p>