Can color film survive the rise of digital projection?

Discussion in 'Film and Processing' started by greg_miller|10, Jul 11, 2011.

  1. There is still billions of feet of color film being manufactured each year but the vast majority of it is being produced for theatrical projection. It won't be too too long until most theaters have converted to digital projection. The projectors are dropping in price, a movie finished in 4K+ digital can be a wonderful looking thing (done right) and the industry wants it for ease of distribution.

    I don't know enough about the manufacturing of color film but I suspect it is a highly complex process in comparison to manufacturing a piece of B&W film. Is it easy enough to manufacture, that a company could do it producing a tiny fraction of the amount as is being produced today?

    Anyone out there know enough about manufacturing color film to say whether it is realistic to do on a small scale? I suspect yes but I also suspect a price more like 30 to 40 dollars per roll by the time you pay for film and processing.
     
  2. The timing is unknown, but the trend is unstoppable.

    My guess is that both color and B&W films will be with us for another 10 years.

    It will depend mostly on the financial health of Kodak and Fuji.

    The price will go up, maybe not quite to the level you suggest.

    All of the above is just guesswork, of course.
     
  3. Big companies like Fuji and Kodak will give up on film when they think they can make more money spending their film budget on other things. Over time, film will become a smaller niche occupied by smaller companies like Ilford and Adox (though I'm not sure Adox actually makes film -- who's their supplier?) who aren't in a position to produce their own digital cameras. They'll stay with it as long as they can remain solvent doing so. As long as there is enough of a market to support a few small film manufacturers, film will still be around, though eventually you'll have to have your own darkroom or have your films processed by mail order due to the lack of local commercial labs.
     
  4. There are one or two small companies that make color film, but to the best of my knowledge do not sell to the motion picture industry. So if they can survive by not relying on motion pictures, one would think that Kodak, with their superior print film technology, can survive. Or put in another way....their film will survive. If not made by them, then by some spin-out or other company that buys the technology. There intellectual property is just too valuable to go away. Provided there are enough buyers, some entity will make Kodak-like color print film. Same probably applies to Fujichrome.
    My two cents worth.
     
  5. This question has been beaten around the internet for more than ten years and has been beaten to death.
    Last time I checked (today) 127 rollfilm was still being made and sold.
    If the demand for 35mm C41 color film drops by 99.9 percent, millions of rolls will still be made and used annually. I love digital and use it it regularly but there are still people using film, and even cyanotype, daguerre, and tintype. Polaroid has even been brought back from death. Don't make long term predictions based on short term fears.
     
  6. Kodak has very high capital expenses, and rather ruinously high property taxes in Rochester, New York. The drop in "Eastman Color Print" film sales is hitting them very hard, it's the backbone of their operation (say 70-90% of production). It covers their fixed costs, if that goes away, their business model crumbles.
    (When Kodak shuts a facility, they don't just lock the doors. They scrap the equipment, tear down the building, and reduce it to a fenced vacant lot. Anything to stop paying those property taxes. Kodak Park is now full of vacant lots.)
     
  7. I don't know how big a threat digital projection is to color film in general or even slide film. I stopped projecting slides about 20 years ago (although I still have the projector, screen, and magazines) because I worried about the effects of heat on the film and I realized none of my friends or family liked being herded into a stuffy room to look at slides. I have bought several hand held slide viewers on Ebay and passing them around while I load, unload, and reload them allows each viewer to spend as much or as little time as they wish looking at them in a well lit room, out on the porch, or outdoors on the patio and is a more pleasant experience for everyone. IMHO. Similarly, I have no desire to digitally project images.
     
  8. Kodak has very high capital expenses, and rather ruinously high property taxes in Rochester, New York. The drop in "Eastman Color Print" film sales is hitting them very hard, it's the backbone of their operation (say 70-90% of production). It covers their fixed costs, if that goes away, their business model crumbles.
    (When Kodak shuts a facility, they don't just lock the doors. They scrap the equipment, tear down the building, and reduce it to a fenced vacant lot. Anything to stop paying those property taxes. Kodak Park is now full of vacant lots.)​
    That's speculation based on wild imagination. Film sales have actually stabilised recently, the first time they haven't dropped in over a decade. It's from last year, but this still makes interesting reading. Many big name movies are still shot on 35mm film and ALL movies are still archived to film and often distributed on film. I would bet on still being able to buy rolls of 35mm in 50 years. When photography was first invented the world thought drawing and painting would end.
    The dynamic range of film is still the last big hurdle digital needs to conquer and is another reason why it's preferred for movies. Here's another interesting article. The archival properties of digital are appalling. Left untouched for over 20 years, most digital stoarge options (HDD, CD, DVD, TAPE, CHIP) are toast. Throw a box of negatives in your attic and they'll most likely still be perfectly useable in 100 years time. Just imagine trying to extract data from a few of those old 5.25" floppy disks from the 1980's... you just know that most will be completely corrupt.
    As Michael Linn says, even if film sales drop 99%, some small company in India will still be churning out millions of rolls of 35mm every year. China's already at it with their Shanghai brand etc.
     
  9. It won't be too too long until most theaters have converted to digital projection.​
    Perhaps in the US where (I believe) the cinemas are owned by big corporations. Here in the UK and probably the rest of Europe, cinemas are owned privately or by smaller companies who are not so willing to pay huge sums for digital projectors which might be obsolete in a few years when instead, they could carry on using their optical projectors at no extra cost.
     
  10. I think movie theater projection from film and the use of film in still photogrpahy are two very different markets from a business perspective. The two types of film might come out of the same Kodak factory but are different emulsions, different processes, sold in different quantities (massive sales of 2000-foot rolls to a handful of labs vs lots of relatively small sales of small-size rolls to lots of stores and mail-order camera shops), etc. But I think it's safe to say film use in theaters is going to way of film use in TV news and film use in newspaper photography. In other words, it's just a matter of time. My grandfather ran movie theaters all his life and some theaters still use 50-year-old-plus 35mm projectors (with obviously some extensive modifications over the years). But new installations are going mostly digital. One major supplier has a feature on its web site about a new 24-screen theater in Texas that is totally digital from the box office to the projection booth. The same central computer system not only supplies digital files to the digital projectors but counts ticket and concession stand sales, turns the lights on and off and the heat up and down, etc.
     
  11. Smooth Carrots nailed this one. Long after Fuji and Kodak have crashed (and I personally dont think they will) China will still be cranking out billions of rolls of film.
    If you want to know about 35mm film viability just look at the prices of the devices that use them. Cameras that are 20 to 50 years old are commanding anywhere from healthy to ridiculous prices on auction sites and craiglist. And its not just collectors...people are using these cameras. Just look at the film groups recently on flickr. As an amateur photographer I started using digital several years back and the went on a hiatus because I disliked the digital workflow. Just this last February I picked up an old Mamiya Sekor DTL1000 and it rejuvinated my photography. Im now shooting old Minoltas and Canon FD's and loving every minute of it.
    Film est mort. Viva la Film.
     
  12. When was the last time major new advances were made in film technology, or the cameras that use it? One of the reasons I feel the movie industry still uses it is because digital still looks kind of "flat" (personal opinion), but that too will probably change in time. Most, if not all R&D dollars are being spent on the digital process.
    I grew up on film and shot it extensively, and cringed everytime I dropped off 25 or so rolls of Kodachrome for processing. Let's face it, the modern digital range blows it away as does the ease of conversion from capture to image. No more internegs and all of the associated headaches, increases in contrast etc when going from slide to prints.
    Sure, managing workflow can be a headache-but that's primarily due to the ability to shoot literally thousands of images vs what would've been a few hundred in film. It will be around for as long as companies can remain profitable manufacturing the chemistry, and no longer.
    No one knows what will be in use 20 years from now, I wouldn't be surprised if digital as we know it transforms drastically, maybe even to the point we won't consider it the same.
     
  13. Randall, Im glad you brought that up. I may post something soon in Classic Manual Cameras about this. I really believe that we will shortly(next couple of years) see a few new models of film cameras from one or more of the major manufacturers. They cant possibly be unaware of the recent continued interest in film and the old cameras that use them. The new Fuji X100 is a perfect example of a manufacturer that understands market trends and designs a product to fit. Its a metal bodied digital rangefinder (sorta) with an honest to god aperture ring. OMG, its about time. Somebody finally moved away from the traditional plastic craptastic bodies and menu driven buttons to bring us a slighty more traditional body design. This really matters to some people, myself included. Part of the allure for photography for me is using a wonderful tool to achieve my art.
    Can you imagine if Canon would bring out a modern version for the F-1? A simple metal bodied 35mm camera with modern matrix metering then introduce a new line of autofocus lenses with aperture rings like back in the day. Hell, maybe even have some cheaper manual focus primes available. They wouldnt have to be metal bodies lenses either, they could design them to plastic FD specs to keep the cost down. My old FDn lenses still feel great to this day. Im sure you could sell a camera like this for close to the price of a new Rebel. Or they could control cost even more and go with a A-1 Mk II with a polycarb body but electroplated like the original A-1. Feels like metal to me.
    Nikon could do this, Pentax could do this. I fully expect Fuji to do something like this soon. A revolution in film photography could spring from this when consumers see a retro classic body with modern specs sitting in a sea of 'me-to' digital cameras. Why pay so much for a full frame digital when you can have the original full frame camera? Would it be for everyone? No. But it would be for plenty of enough people to sell well.
    Here's hoping.
     
  14. There is still billions of feet of color film being manufactured each year but the vast majority of it is being produced for theatrical projection. It won't be too too long until most theaters have converted to digital projection.​
    In terms of numbers of showings and in terms of revenues, digital passed the half way point last year. So, digital has already eaten half the distribution business. In terms of total number of screens world wide, it was supposed to have hit the half way point in April, but the DCI hasn't released the latest figures yet.
    I'm betting 100%, worldwide, by late 2013. AMC, the largest theater chain in the US, has said that they're going to be 100% digital by May, 2012. Marcus Theaters (the number 6 chain) made a similar announcement.
    Perhaps in the US where (I believe) the cinemas are owned by big corporations. Here in the UK and probably the rest of Europe, cinemas are owned privately or by smaller companies who are not so willing to pay huge sums for digital projectors​
    Actually, you have a higher rate of conversion over there. Europe is already up over half. Announcements about yet another chain committing to be 100% digital within a year are common...
    http://dcinematoday.com/dc/pr.aspx?newsID=2406
     
  15. I don't know enough about the manufacturing of color film but I suspect it is a highly complex process in comparison to manufacturing a piece of B&W film. Is it easy enough to manufacture, that a company could do it producing a tiny fraction of the amount as is being produced today?

    Anyone out there know enough about manufacturing color film to say whether it is realistic to do on a small scale?​
    That depends on what sort of color film you want. I ran some projections on this a while back.
    The latest technology, like the new Ektar, will die in about 2 years, with the death of film cinema.
    The t-grain B&W and color films should die in about 5 years.
    Color emulsions that look like something from 20-30 years ago are sustainable in relatively small plants, maybe 50 people, and that level of quality will not sustain a market past 10 years.
    Older style B&W emulsions can be made by companies as small as 1-4 people, and the market is sustainable indefinitely.​
    There's my best shot at a timeline...
     
  16. okay, think about this...
    I have seen plastic kit cameras (ala. Gakkenflex) where you build your own machine from pre-molded parts.
    I have also seen demonstrations of 3-D printers that can create wrenches from a scan.
    Now, combine those thoughts to imagine creating new, sophisticated film cameras from our own designs or downloadable file shares. Printing a camera!
    Pretty soon we will be able to build our own custom film cameras either one-off or in the millions. These cameras (like today's Holga/Diana trends) will also create more demand for photographic films.
    If the big guys bail on film completely that will open opportunities for small boutique manufacturers to produce new films. I imagine we might see even more innovation from these new small players due to their flexibility.
    Don't count out film just yet. The best may be yet to come.
     
  17. I don't have a crystal ball...but there are only 2 labs in the US that still make theatrical motion picture prints. I believe motion picture film's days are coming to an end in the next few years.
    I do suspect that color print film will become increasingly difficult to buy and I'm not sure anyone will take up manufacturing it for the niche "art photographers" market. B&W is another thing though as it's easy to process at home. When the commercial color labs are almost all gone, that will be the end of color film I would guess.
    Also, look how difficult it is to buy a film scanner today. With no easy way to digitize film, it will also disappear from still photography usage.
     
  18. Also, look how difficult it is to buy a film scanner today. With no easy way to digitize film, it will also disappear from still photography usage.​
    Some of us don't need scanners and computers to print from our negatives.
     
  19. Sorry, hadn't realized that I screwed up the formatting. I think I hit "block quote" instead of "bullet list". It should look like this...
    • The latest technology, like the new Ektar, will die in about 2 years, with the death of film cinema.
    • The t-grain B&W and color films should die in about 5 years.
    • Color emulsions that look like something from 20-30 years ago are sustainable in relatively small plants, maybe 50 people, and that level of quality will not sustain a market past 10 years.
    • Older style B&W emulsions can be made by companies as small as 1-4 people, and the market is sustainable indefinitely.
     
  20. My dear Curtis :)
    Please see: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cinematographer-roger-deakins-switching-film-178661
    No motion picture worth it's weight is going to shoot with the RED camera or
    the Arri Alexa. These cameras are good for commercials and tv shows. thats
    about it.​
    You know, all the 3d films (shot in 3d, not converted) shoot digitally. And that's most of the biggest budgeted movies being made today. Pirates of the Caribbean was shot with RED one MX cameras. Martin Scorsese's new movie, Arri Alexa.
    I'm only pointing out the top guys here because I know you won't believe me from my personal experience anyway...but here goes :)
    This past year I color graded a movie I shot with the RED mx camera (for those who don't know, "color grading" is Photoshop for movies) and right after that, a movie shot on 35mm film in Anamorphic format. There was no comparison in image quality. The Red camera made a far better image, much more detail and almost no grain/noise. And I'm not the biggest fan of this camera colorwise, but it was really no contest.
    You know I wanted to shoot my next project on the Alexa this summer, but we can't. They are in such great demand, they're very hard to get.
    And how many hollywood movies or tv use 65mm or IMAX film for even part of the project? Maybe less than 1/10 percent. Maybe 1 of 5000 projects.
    And don't discount tv shows as part of the market. 5 years ago almost all tv (episodic, not American Idol type shows) was shot with 35mm or 16mm film in the US. Now, maybe none. And that was a big market for film and film cameras.
    I've got an Arri 35BL camera in the garage. You're welcome to make me an offer! Otherwise it's going into my camera museum...
     
  21. Digital movies look fake and hurt my eyes.
    That's one reason I seldom go to the movies anymore. My wife, Jane, and I used to see 50 to 100 movies in the cinema a year and now less than 5.
    I also get severe headaches from digital/electronic music and prefer to listen to acoustic or electrified "analog" instruments. Natural organic arts for me.
     
  22. If the demand for 35mm C41 color film drops by 99.9 percent, millions of rolls will still be made and used annually.​
    Not quite. If demand drops by 99.9 percent from the peak, then there will be less than 2 million rolls of C-41 film used each year.
     
  23. This...
    http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Products/Customer_Testimonials/Wally_Pfister/index.htm
     
  24. Stuart, you do realize that your video is an advertisement from Kodak? Anyway, I'll take Roger over Wally on this one :)
     
  25. I agree with a lot of what you estimate Joseph.....but color negative film vanishing from the majors in 2 years....not a chance!
     
  26. I think Dave L is right-- color neg film will be available for some time, but the market for film has unusual features. It's like the Whitebark Pine and the Clark's Nutcracker.
    As film usage shrinks, nearly all the neighbourhood C41 labs have closed, and that creates a positive feedback loop, AKA a vicious circle. Every time a C41 lab closes, a few dozen film shooters say "Screw it." They put their F2s and T90s on the shelf, and buy a digital camera. And when those people give up film, it puts pressure on the labs, so another one closes. There's probably a mathematical model for describing this kind of a market, but positive feedback loops are inherently unstable, and something has to give. We saw this happen with Kodachrome.
    Irrespective of the motion picture industry, I bet we'll be able to get C41 neg stock for at least a decade, and something like Tri-X for a long time after that. It's impossible to be certain. All photo.net predictions of the death of film have so far proven incorrect (Cf. Leica Jay, 2004). But it may get expensive and inconvenient before it's actually gone.
     
  27. Color film will probably outlast gasoline cars :)
     
  28. digital yields the same flat boring look every single time. a lot like those cheap 1980's soap operas did. I hate everything about digital cinema cameras. and all my film professors agree with me.​
    Curtis you sound so bitter and angry! Why are you studying filmmaking? Filmmaking will be an all digital process pretty darn soon. You might think of changing your major. You are way too young to be a luddite.!
    (cough sarcasm cough)​
    Photography and filmmaking are supposed to have a fun component. I'm afraid you're missing out Curtis.
     
  29. Digital movies look fake and hurt my eyes. That's one reason I seldom go to the movies anymore.​
    Film movies have jitter that gives me a headache. I found my movie enjoyment and attendance increased dramatically with the rise of digital projection. This is also the view of the majority: even in this recession, movie attendance and revenues are up.
    Film movies present the viewer with a "surface" of dirt, scratches, and film grain. All the action happens behind this surface, you're always aware that you're watching from behind a "dirty window". Digital doesn't put anything between you and the movie. Sorry if that bothers you...
     
  30. Dave Luttman - I agree with a lot of what you estimate Joseph.....but color negative film vanishing from the majors in 2 years....not a chance!​
    How about "the majors" themselves vanishing in 2 years? Kodak cannot sustain 2 more years like this one. I'll get to the 10K in a minute. First, something for "Smooth Carrots"...
    Smooth Carrots - That's speculation based on wild imagination. Film sales have actually stabilised recently, the first time they haven't dropped in over a decade.​
    No, they haven't "stabilized". You're not "speculating", you're just plain wrong.
    Here's the latest news from Eastman Kodak, according to their 10Q (quarterly report) for the first quarter of 2011. Compared to the same period in 2010...
    • Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group sales fell 14.4% from $429M to $367M. They went from making a $22M profit to posting a $15M loss.
    • Graphic Communication Group (Kodak inkjets) had a sales increase from $601M to $625M, but still managed to post a $71M loss, larger than the same period last year.
    • Consumer Digital Imaging Group (Digital cameras) had a dramatic drop in sales from $884M to $330M, and went from posting a $401M profit to a $168M loss.
    • Consolidated losses for all groups $273M, vs. a profit of $245M for the same period last year.
     
  31. So Kodak's lowest loss was from film. Not quite as good as a profit though.
     
  32. Marc Rochkind - It will depend mostly on the financial health of Kodak and Fuji.​
    Indeed it will. That's what prompted me to take a look at Kodak's latest 10K (annual) and 10Q (quarterly) reports. I wasn't prepared for what I found...
    John Shriver - Kodak has very high capital expenses, and rather ruinously high property taxes in Rochester, New York. The drop in "Eastman Color Print" film sales is hitting them very hard, it's the backbone of their operation (say 70-90% of production). It covers their fixed costs, if that goes away, their business model crumbles.​
    Actually, no. I always believed something like this, too. But these things haven't been the backbone of Kodak for years. Kodak splits their operation into three segments
    • Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group (FPEG). This includes all film products: consumer and professional roll film and paper, cinema shooting and distribution stock, and medical. I'll refer to them as "film".
    • Graphic Communications Group (GCG), which makes inkjet printers, pressed, and prepress equipment. I'll refer to them as "ink". Little desktop ink, or room filling ink.
    • Consumer Digital Imaging Group (CDIG), which makes Kodak digital cameras. I'll refer to them as "digital".
    According to Kodak's summary and to the numbers in the reports, that digital camera group has been 60-70% of Kodak for the last 3 years. All film (still, movie, and medical) together has held pretty constant at 22% of Kodak. Ink and digital account for the other 78%.
    OK, here's the scary part. Kodak is most definitely shutting down film...
    Among the other things that the report mentions, there's a summary of R&D expenditures on page 8.
    Year 2008 2009 2010
    Film 49 33 19
    Ink 221 171 152
    Cameras 205 146 148
    Now, 6% of sales is generally considered normal for healthy companies in the tech industries. If you look at R&D as a percentage of each unit's sales, you'll see that ink and cameras pretty much "track", and that film doesn't.
    Year 2008 2009 2010
    Film 1.64% 1.46% 1.08%
    Ink 6.63% 6.27% 5.63%
    Cameras 6.64% 5.57% 5.54%
    1-2% reinvestment is not sustainable. Let me emphasize that. 1-2% reinvestment is not sustainable in any industry: from agriculture, to transportation, to paper mills, to clothing. Sometime before 2008, Kodak determined that film was, as far as a sustainable business segment of Kodak, dead. They essentially shut down film R&D.
     
  33. Cool, I've got Smiths. So many of them. Call me Neo!
    Steve Smith - So Kodak's lowest loss was from film. Not quite as good as a profit though.​
    Yes, but it makes a lot more sense when you look at it like this. Kodak and Fuji both have falling sales and posted losses in their film groups. But Kodak also managed to screw up in digital cameras, a segment where other companies, including the green box guys, are posting profits and sales gains. Looking at both the sales and profit numbers from 2008-2010 and the horrifying first quarter of 2011, Kodak is in really bad shape. And looking at R&D expenditures, they're still heroically trying to maintain digital cameras and their ink printing businesses at about the same levels as any normal, healthy company, although they have cut reinvestment in both 2010 and 2009. But they have virtually shut down their film operation. A fertilizer company wouldn't run those 1-2% numbers, let alone Eastman Frakking Kodak.
    David Smith - If you want to know about 35mm film viability just look at the prices of the devices that use them. Cameras that are 20 to 50 years old are commanding anywhere from healthy to ridiculous prices on auction sites and craiglist.​
    One could say the same about butter churns and spinning wheels. The collectible market is tremendous for things that look good sitting on a shelf, unused. Sort of like a Leica film body. The majority of collectors will not mount a lens, because scuffing the mounts diminishes the collectible value. I know gun collectors who are the same way.
    They cant possibly be unaware of the recent continued interest in film and the old cameras that use them.​
    You mean the "recent continued interest in film" that I documented above? Like Kodak essentially shutting down their R&D, a few years ago? Or sales that fall every year?
    Can you imagine if Canon would bring out a modern version for the F-1? A simple metal bodied 35mm camera with modern matrix metering then introduce a new line of autofocus lenses with aperture rings like back in the day.​
    This was covered, quite thoroughly, in other threads. Aperture rings on lenses are injurious to photographers. The camera companies have access to good research; they've known this for decades. Why do you think Canon and Minolta scrapped their existing systems and went to new systems without aperture rings back in the mid 80s? And why Nikon and Pentax are catching up. When Blad and Leica's new owners (Blad's last new owners, not the new "new" owners) launched new product lines, like the H1 and S2, respectively, the aperture rings went away. They are not coming back. This is a "good thing".
     
  34. OK, a bit wider range. In the 2004 and 2005 annual reports, Eastman Kodak stated teh numbers for film and digital together, as one group, "D&FIS". The other two groups were "health", which is now gone, and GCG, the same old "ink". For the 2006 annual report, they reorganized their groups, split the film and digital numbers, and restated 2004 and 2005, so this is based on the 2006, 2008, and 20 10-K reports. So, 2006 was when Kodak admitted to the world (or at least the parts of the world capable of understanding their SEC filings) that they are phasing out the film business, totally.
    R&D 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
    film 155 89 76 60 49 33 19
    ink 145 278 231 214 221 171 151
    cameras 164 179 290 250 205 146 148
    And here is the R&D reinvestment in each of the three reporting groups of Kodak.
    R&D 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
    film 2.20% 1.67% 1.79% 1.65% 1.64% 1.46% 1.08%
    ink 10.79% 9.30% 7.03% 6.27% 6.63% 6.27% 5.63%
    cameras 6.93% 5.57% 9.62% 7.70% 6.64% 5.57% 5.40%
    Note that even in 2004, when film was still accounting for 65% of Kodak's sales, and digital cameras just 22%, that they effectively yanked the rug out from under film by allocating it 2.20% of its sales for R&D, while giving cameras a healthy 6.93%.
     
  35. Joseph, don't worry, your precious digital photography will be around for a long, long time. But it sounds as if you delight in our slow loss of film almost to the point of evangelical obsession.
    I still contend that color photographic film will survive beyond Kodak or Fuji.
     
  36. But it sounds as if you delight in our slow loss of film almost to the point of evangelical obsession.​
    I have reported facts, calmly, and without any evangelism, either in favor of digital or film. I am well known as an alternative process printer, and work with platinum, gum, bromoil, carbon, cyanotype, and Vandyke printing, often in combination, and have been experimenting with hand coated silver gelatin plates. I do not "delight" in the slow loss or quick loss of anything, aside from the loss of attitudes such as yours, which cannot happen quickly enough.
    Not everyone who disagrees with you is either evangelical or obsessed. In fact, judging from your comments about the use of rapid prototyping equipment to construct cameras, I'd say it's quite likely that people who disagree with you are simply better educated, or saner than you, or both.
    I still contend that color photographic film will survive beyond Kodak or Fuji.​
    I did not say that it wouldn't. I stated that "The latest technology, like the new Ektar, will die in about 2 years, with the death of film cinema." Examine your own inability to read what I actually wrote as a symptom of your own possible "evangelical obsession".
     
  37. Joseph I doubt they make a hat big enough to fit on your head.
     
  38. Joseph I doubt they make a hat big enough to fit on your head.​
    I have actually seen a picture of Joseph wearing a hat, so it is humanly possible. I can't find a link.
    Perhaps the Guinness or the Ripley pages would have it.
     
  39. Joseph I doubt they make a hat big enough to fit on your head.​
    Bill, you're projecting, again. I'm getting tired of being the scapegoat for all the faults that you see in yourself.
    I have actually seen a picture of Joseph wearing a hat, so it is humanly possible. I can't find a link.​
    LOL, Marc, that picture is everywhere! I use a picture of me in my infamous bush hat with the silver Kokopeli and flute playing angel charms as my avatar on several sites. So, if you've wandered across my posts on any site with avatars (dpReview, PotN, Photomacrography.net) you've seen this shot. (Bill, it's a pinhole shot, which will conflict with your image of me as the enemy of anything "classical", so pretend you don't see it. You appear to be good at that sort of thing).
    00Z3Fw-380419684.jpg
     
  40. James G. Dainis

    James G. Dainis Moderator

    Moderator's note: Now, now, children. Play nice.
     
  41. apologies to the board
     
  42. Perhaps I'm betraying a bias for film, but I think one has to wonder about the true motivations for posts like this, and that of those who would go to the lengths certain folks will...
    While I have no expertise in determining the apparent nuances between movies made on film vs. those made digitally, it seems that both have supporters and detractors. I suspect the differences are not important at all if the work is of sufficient quality. This overblown emphasis on subtle differences in appearances (b.s. in my view) seems all too typical of the U.S. these days; we should be focusing much more on the work itself.
    Currently, my photographic interests are with 35mm still photography, and as my experience increases, I have been happily surprised with results. And my sense for the last few years is that most of the local people I respect in photography are feeling this way, as well. Most of us shoot film, and very often, scan it for web use, and/or, for print. As long as one has a good scanner and doesn't shoot a huge amount, this hybrid workflow works very well. Even at the few workshops I've attended, the instructors seemed taken with the film results.
    Comments about some recent work I did in NYC from a writer/editor at the NY Times, the group I was photographing, and the organizers of the event, provided confirmation to what I was already thinking about modern negative films. And I've always loved tranny films for nature. Of course this workflow doesn't involve constant "keeping up with the Jones" in terms of frequent gear "upgrades" (i.e. buying and attending classes), so it's not good for those with skin in the financial games of camera manufacturing, software, and retail...
    Personally, I would not waste time reading a post like this except that I feel compelled to speak up for film because I don't want to see it go away (I think I'll find a new hobby if that's what happens.) Naturally, my fear is that if enough people are swayed by these fairly cleverly designed posts into thinking that film is facing a short life span, they will give up on it; i.e., it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'd really like to see these strange, basically, "speculation issues about film's decline" go elsewhere, so many of us don't waste further time and energy on them.
     
  43. The fact that people differ on this subject doesn't mean one side is actively rooting for the demise of film.
    My first color film was Kodachrome II. That is from around the early to mid-sixties. It was a great film. It was soon gone. I have seen so many films and even film formats go by the wayside that I have lost count.
    You learn to adapt. I have a nice collection of film SLRs. I plan to shoot a wide variety of B&W films and try various developers. I will take notes and determine my favorite combinations. I haven't done that in such a systematic way since the 1970's. It sounds like fun.
    Now what was the question?
     
  44. if enough people are swayed by these fairly cleverly designed posts into thinking that film is facing a short life span,​
    I see no evidence that anything that anyone has posted is "cleverly designed" to create such an effect. If you have any actual arguments to counter any of the facts presented, I'd love to hear them. Otherwise, your insults are not appreciated.
     
  45. Hi Marc,
    I'd heard about how good Kodachrome II was, though it was a bit before my time. I've been using the same tranny film for about seven years now, Kodak E100g, and appreciate it more each year. Before that, I was using its predecessor, E100S, and/or, E100SW (slightly warmer). I love the E100g, and will attach a few recent flower images for you- sorry about the watermarks. I'd really urge you to try this flavor if you might be looking for a great color transparency film.
    00Z3rE-381131584.jpg
     
  46. A second flower image...
    00Z3rH-381133584.jpg
     
  47. The problem i have with this discussion is that somehow r€€ and d spend is being linked to product viability. kodak could sell tri-x and ektar 100 for the next century without one penny further of r and d.
     
  48. Jeff,
    Thanks for posting the images. It looks like E100G has good response even into the violet region. The greens also look natural.
    I will have to pick up a several rolls with my next film buy.
     
  49. Of course you're very welcome, Marc. It's great to get that kind of feedback from experienced people like you and Louis Meluso (on another post). I'd tried to substitute some color negative films for it last year for nature, but they didn't seem to quite measure up (but I absolutely love the Portra's for people, urban settings, and more). I do look forward to experimenting with the new Portra 400 for some wildlife photography, as I'm hearing great things about it, but for the right situations, I really love this 100 speed tranny emulsion.
    As you probably know, it might be optimal to use a mild warming filter with the E100g outdoors, and that's what I almost always do.
    ... kodak could sell tri-x and ektar 100 for the next century without one penny further of r and d.​
    That seems like a pretty cogent point to me also, Dave. Might be nice though, if they could make these already great films even better, though:)!
     
  50. I don't know what people are talking about when they say very few movies are shot on film.. Try the following search in google (basically a search on imdb.com for kodak vision3 2010 in the technical specifications).
    http://goo.gl/EsLXj
    This lists over 150 films in 2010 - more than in 2009!
    Film is a premium product for high quality films and seems a preference for many directors, producers, cinematographers.
    By all accounts we shouldn't really be seeing any black and white films or photography produced any more because it's 'irrelevant' and 'out of date', but...
    As for business, Kodak will always make more money selling the equipment to a niche company than scrapping it and I would be happy to bet half my salary that I'll be shooting colour film until I'm dead. (hopefully another few decades yet). I'll bet that Kodak will have sold off film production to some form of management buy out funded by a movie industry investment consortium. Fuji have already rationalised their film production lines and so they will be selling two or three lines of E6 and a couple of C41 lines (consumer and pro) although they may have spun the company out to an asian investment consortium who will operate the production out of china.
    The chances that both Kodak and Fuji will go "A f*** it!" and destroy there whole production facilities without an attempt to rationalise or divest is very, very slim.
    Tim
     
  51. Corporate greed has no morality. Kodak's MBAs will likely see more advantage to scrapping the whole kit and kaboodle and writing it off the books than trading it away.
    That plus they won't be able to stand seeing a smaller company make money where they couldn't.
     

Share This Page