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

<p>Overall there are more analog / film cameras in the world than digital. Analog had more than 100 years to develop, and billions of cameras have been manufactured and sold. They all need to be fed with - you've guessed it - film.</p>

<p>Just today I've read the tech specs of Kodak Professional Elite Chrome 100 and stumbled across the information, that this film is also available for 4x5" and 8x10" format. Wow.</p>

<p>Before 35mm will die, they'll discontinue 8x10. On the other hand I notice that more and more serious photographers step up to larger formats, particularly 8x10 in the Americas.</p>

<p>I am a photographer. I don't own a digital camera. I still use film for many reasons. I don't worry about the future of film. Not now, not for the years to come. I've read in the LF forum that Kodak just made a statement that 8x10 slide film will be available for at least another 3 years. Guaranteed.</p>

<p>Then there is the green giant - Fuji. They manufactured the 667 and the 667W. While the first one is sold out, the second one will hit the market soon. Does anybody really think they are so stupid to develop a film camera if they plan do quit the film business?</p>

<p>In Europe still more than 15% of all prints are made from film. Does anybody think Kodak or Fuji would ignore this market? 15% is a market share of several millions in Euro or US$.</p>

<p>You can bet your butt that someone would purchase the machines from Kodak if they would quit the biz now.</p>

<p>BTW, making film is independent from the format: the machines produce very large sheets or strips, which then will be cut into the final format. That means they would either totally stop the machine or let it run - and supply any format as they've used to do over the last 2 decades.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p> Library of Congress today still uses analog reel-to-reel</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is good for the Library of Congress is not necessary good or relevant for most of us. I can see why if you have a huge audio library their's would be a useful rationale. But the Library of Congress is certainly digitally archiving its images. Don't forget that preserving film archives of any kind for time immemorial is hardly straightforward.</p>

<p>In the last issue of Black & White Photography (UK magazine), it is announced that AgfaPhoto has relauched the production of the Agfa APX 100 in 135 format. 120 format will be made avalaible in 2011. The 135 format is avalaible online through Silverprint.com –> <a href="http://www.silverprint.co.uk/ProductByGroup.asp?PrGrp=2271">http://www.silverprint.co.uk/ProductByGroup.asp?PrGrp=2271</a><br>

Now, I don't know if the film will be avalaible in North America. This is my beloved film.<br>

Pierre Boucher, Montréal, Canada</p>

<p>"Don't forget that preserving film archives of any kind for time immemorial is hardly straightforward."</p>

<p>I think this is a much bigger issue for digital than for film. The archival properties of film are one reason why it is still so valuable. Will we be able to see the digital 'files' we made 100 years from now, like we can routinely see in film-based exhibits (often work from 100 years ago or more) in museums around the world?</p>

<p>So far, the only progress made in the digital sphere on any practical basis is the DNG format, but even this will face extinction as more possibilities are developed.</p>

<p>While film is "outdated" compared to digital in most user convenience measures, it remains to be seen how well digital files will survive even the next twenty years. Which brings us back to the only real archival method for digital files, which is, quite ironically, the creation of actual prints.</p>

<p>And while anyone can use the exact same camera used by a photographer 100 years ago and produce similar results using the exact same methods, will anyone be able to use a 5DMkii or D700 in even 20 years -- it's doubtful these will even exist except on collector's shelves and in pop culture museums.</p>

<p>After bottoming out it seems to me that film is enjoying a small renaissance in the UK, I have a few anedotal sources to support this:<br>

I was chatting to the owner of Silverpint (a great shop for all things related to film photography) who said that film sales have increased recently from their all time low.<br>

The Camera Club in Kennington (the oldest photographic club in the world) where I am a member, has seen an increase in teh use of it's dark rooms.<br>

Lomography (although a fad) seems to be doing well, judging by the number of shops in London, and is introducing a new generation to film.<br>

Flickr groups, such as 'I shoot film' are very well populated and used.<br>

I think it will always survive, not in the mainstream, but as a specialised, but important part of photography.</p>

<p>The Ongoing "Mystery" is why these threads keep popping up. Yesterday British Journal of Photography announced that Ilford Harman is making the first NEW black and white photo paper in 13 years. They also announced Kodak is bringing out a new Portra 160 film to replace the previous VC/NC emulsions. The Kodak CEO said the company plans to keep manufacturing film as long as photographers use it, and noted a<em> New YOUNG generation of film photographers coming up. </em><br>

But the ignorant can't be bothered with silly things like "Facts". In a couple of days some bonehead will start another thread like this about the death of film and analog photography. And like lemmings, we'll all jump in. I encourage you to go over to the Classic Camera forum & talk to people who actually shoot pictures on film.</p>

<p>Russ Tell me about it and Ultrafine just introduced a new line of rebadged B&W films too.</p>

<p>In response to the missive above, I note that the majority of those who predict the continued viability of film proclaim that it is still being made in larger formats, so why worry? That doesn't relieve those of us who use 35mm E6 exclusively. I've no interest in carrying a Hasselblad around, since most of my photography these days is done during travel abroad, and I'd prefer to keep my neck unbroken. There are, I believe, digital alternatives in medium format. So, you see, my initial inquiry that launched this thread-become-rope was not "boneheaded." Reliable labs for E6 processing/mounting can be counted on the digits of one hand. Nobody does K64 now. Like The Prophet Daniel, I believe I can discern the meaning of the various symbols on the wall. </p>

<p><em>"...my initial inquiry that launched this thread-become-rope was not "boneheaded." Reliable labs for E6 processing/mounting can be counted on the digits of one hand. "</em><br>

Well Shane, why didn't you SPECIFY "35mm E6" in the post then? You would have gotten more pertinent answers and made it easier for future querents to find info. Unfortunately E6 & Transparencies were in trouble LONG before digital made inroads. That market began declining rapidly in the late 80's. I share your concern since I shoot a lot of Super 8 Reversal stock and love to project it directly. So far Kodak seems to be hanging in there with a few E6 emulsions. Fuji has theirs as well.</p>

<p>I believe, Mr. Sarile, that I have on at least two occasions thanked the respondents, thinking this thread had played itself out. But in the interest of good manners, I again thank all who responded for the wealth of useful information.<br>

Mr. Rosener, I believe if you consult my initial posting I specifically mentioned E-6 film. I said nothing of print or larger formats. I realize that the old "slide show" on the trusty Ektagraphic started going out of vogue some years ago. I, however, still project my slides. A bit quaint, perhaps, but that does not bother me in the least. I thank ALL again for the responses. The number quite exceeded my expectations.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In further response to Mr. Rosener, I specifically noted in the original posting that I was concerned about continued availablity of "E-6 emulsions" for use in my Nikon F100. I assumed that most persons who would bother to respond would know that the F100 is a rather celebrated 35mm SLR that has been around for some years. In short, I think your criticism on this score is groundless. Yours, Shane Usary, soon to become "Cybershane." </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I realize that the old "slide show" on the trusty Ektagraphic started going out of vogue some years ago.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I spoke to my sister today about having a slide show of our late father's slides. This will be done properly with projector and screen, not some second rate imitation with scans and a television.</p>

<p>I dunno if this answers the question but, every time I go into my local Ralph's market, I see Fuji film 4-roll packs on Clearance sale. In fact, I just bought a few rolls last night. The expiration date is 12/2012 so it is not old stock. It was $5 for the 4-roll pack. Every time I go in, there is a few more boxes of film, all marked "Clearance Sale! 50% off" and all still fresh film. I keep wondering what this means.</p>

<p>I'm sure there's been plenty of comments on this. E6 looks to be in a shakier position than B&W or C41, ignoring other factors such as stability of the companies that make the film. Processing is a bit harder to find. Kodak has only a couple of E6 products left - E100VS and E100G and the two consumer counterparts. </p>

<p>Fuji has a lot more, but the company's overall stance appears to me to be a lot more difficult to discern. They are also shedding products. I know a lot of people say that it looks like Kodak is sticking to C41 and Fuji is sticking with E6, but Fuji's offerings really are getting decimated all across the board - C41, B&W, and several E6 films. I don't know what this means. To be fair, their E6 lineup was pretty large.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... Yours, Shane Usary, soon to become "Cybershane."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Doesn't surprise me. I think he's been "Cybershane" from the get-go, along with some of his choice relatives...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Ongoing "Mystery" is why these threads keep popping up. Yesterday British Journal of Photography announced that Ilford Harman is making the first NEW black and white photo paper in 13 years. They also announced Kodak is bringing out a new Portra 160 film to replace the previous VC/NC emulsions. The Kodak CEO said the company plans to keep manufacturing film as long as photographers use it, and noted a<em> New YOUNG generation of film photographers coming up. </em><br />But the ignorant can't be bothered with silly things like "Facts". In a couple of days some bonehead will start another thread like this about the death of film and analog photography. And like lemmings, we'll all jump in. I encourage you to go over to the Classic Camera forum & talk to people who actually shoot pictures on film.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well said, Russ. I suspect a lot of them are perhaps not completely ignorant, but have ulterior motives; i.e. "Oh, I'm so worried about my hundred-fifty dollar camera depreciating..." Makes a whole bunch of sense. Brings to mind a certain local camera store owner telling people three years ago that he was told film was about to be "discontinued" while he sold them new digital cameras.</p>

<p>I think it speaks extremely well of film photography that so many of us are passionate enough to spend our time on these b.s. artists.</p>

<p>I was so worried Jeff, that I just purchased a second Nikon F5 a few weeks back. ;-)</p>

<p>Just shoot film enjoy and adjust as you have too. Just because you shoot film does not mean you can't evolve. I shoot film because I enjoy processing and scanning my own B&W as for color I shoot E6 and send it off. I just got another new film camera today because well because $23.00 for a Minolta XG1 with a lens was too hard to pass up. I ordered 100 feet of film and funny thing is it was $22.99. :)</p>

<p>I received a telepathic transmission from the Pythia of Delphi earlier in the evening. I consider her more credible than that dreary early Renaissance fraud Michel de Notre Dame, aka Nostradamus. It was then rephrased by the Sybil of Cumae as follows: "Leviathans of West and East/One hue of Mars' face and Sol Invictus and other of hue verdant/Destroy punctured strips of transparent parchment/During second reign of a Moab black and white." </p>

<p>When you're having that real slide show, don't forget to have the temperature turned up to about 80ºF, the room dark, Uncle Fred snoring in the corner, and the bulb burning out half-way through.</p>

<p>Nothing in the world so sleep-inducing as the subtle click, click, of the projector and a voice intoning<br>

"If this weren't overexposed, you would see Uncle Fred in the water....."</p>

<p>Ah, memories of childhood and a thousand slide-illustrated lectures. Heaven.</p>

<p>Oh, one last thing (or two). First, I have been a fierce partisan of film for years, as my old and sometimes bellicose battles with "cyberheads" on this very site will attest. So I have NOT been a "cyberhead" from the beginning. Second, if I had my way, cybernetics and photography would never have become even casual acquaintances. The advent of digital "photography" was the result of a crisis in the camera industry during the 90's, when 35mm camera sales went sharply downward because consumers, satisfied with the excellent and durable 35mm instruments they had, stopped sucuumbing to the temptation to "move up to the latest thing." Alas, something had to be done. So, said the great viziers of Nikon, Canon, and ultimately Sony, we shall simply stop making 35mm cameras and replace them with junky, overpriced digital product. We've done enough R&D to do that. Idiots will pay $800 for our 3MP toys (after they are taught what "MP" means); we shall meanwhile continue digital R&D and eventually create a new, vast market that will rise from the ashes of the "old hat, you don't want that" 35mm stuff we peddled for so long. After all, we have a generation of kids coming along who will snap up anything that even remotely connotes cybernetics. The older folks will eventually join the bandwagon, and happiness will once again reign in The Land of the Rising Sun.</p>

<p>S.Usary that is the most important thing I have heard all day. I like Humor and histological mashed History is great Look for more Harry Turtledove books. :-)</p>

<p>Who or what the hell is "Harry Turtledove"? Moreover, the relevance of "histological" here is rather obscure to me.</p>

<p>Look him up on the internet. Famous Author.</p>

<p>Sounds like a nom de plume for a scrivener of childrens' tomes. I still would like an explanation of the relevance of histology here.</p>

<p>Sorry you did not get the joke.</p>