Is Kodak's announcement the death knell for film?

<p>Never thought I'd hear it, but Kodak has announced that it will be selling off it's film division as part of it's bankruptcy. Fuji can't be far behind in discontinuing production of film products. Is this the last straw? Me and my F5 are weeping...</p>

<p>No.</p>

<p>Ilford, Efke, Foma... Lots of European options.</p>

<p>Why do you think Fuji cannot be far behind?, in a shrinking market the loss of a competitor can only strengthen their position.<br>

Also the film division is not being closed down its being sold, the intial price will be based on its being an ongoing concern, who knows perhaps it will become an American manufacturing plant for Fuji !!.<br>

Whilst its is true that there wll never be the giant global market that there was, there will still be a market for film as long as enough people keep buying it. So the best thing you can do is not worry about it, go and buy some film and use it.</p>

 

<p>This has already been beat to death here:<br>

<br /><a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00aksN">http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00aksN</a></p>

<p>I'm going to be sad that Portra's going before I got to know it, because an 18-stop dynamic range sounds really appealing even to someone with a D800. But I may just stock up. I'll care more about medium format and, if I ever get the chance to buy one, 5x4 than I do about 35mm - despite having a load in my fridge door, I really don't shoot 35mm film much any more. I'm tempted to pick up a cheap Eos 3 (to complement my F5) which might lure me back with its eye-control focus trick. Fuji are getting rid of various useful films in larger formats, too (notably Velvia variants). I may be going to dedicate a freezer drawer to film soon.</p>

<p>The problem is that it's probably very difficult to make small batches of film at any reasonable price, and the use of film is largely going away even, eventually, in Hollywood.</p>

<p>Film will become impractical, alas, before many of us wish it would. That said, I got rid of all my 35mm film gear quite a while back. Don't miss it.</p>

<p>"...an 18-stop dynamic range sounds really appealing" - it also sounds totally bogus, unachievable and unnecessary.</p>

<p>18 stops is a brightness ratio of over 250,000:1 while camera and lens flare alone will amount to about 0.01% at the very least. That's immediately brought the maxiumum practically viable BR down to around 10,000:1. And even if a ridiculous 18 stops could be captured on film - how will anyone view it? On a bit of paper that can only show 100:1, on a monitor in a totally darkened and matt-black painted room where a contrast ratio of 500:1 <em>might</em> be possible? Lasers fired directly into the viewers eyes? Please, let's get real!</p>

<p>I loved using film, and the steeply discounted last runs of bodies at the end of the film era. But like Peter, I've moved on. Digital is working for me. I salute you, film users. Live well!</p>

<p>RJ: See <a href="http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/05/kodaks-new-portra-400-film/">this article</a> on the abilities of Portra. I've no personal experience, but it's awfully tempting as someone thinking of getting into 5x4 to know that I can get the exposure wildly wrong and still have something recoverable from a drum scan. I'm not claiming it'd be noise free, but something is better than nothing, especially while I'm learning. Currently, when shooting (135 and 120) film, I mostly use Velvia to capture colours that don't map properly to digital sensors (e.g. some fllowers have a weird spectrum that film seems to capture better) - but I'm not going for absolute resolution yet.</p>

<p>I was shooting almost all digital from 2005 to 2011 (still used some 4x5 b&w.) Then, I just got tired of the digital look all my shots had. I started buying and using historical cameras and loved them! Over the past weekend I went to a big threshing show for three days and used my 1951 Rolleiflex for 90% of my shots. I'm mostly shooting b&w and there are plenty of choices. I mostly use Ilford HP5 and Fomapan 100. The only film I use from Kodak is Portra 400. It is a great film, but when I shoot film any more I'm mostly thinking vintage b&w. Mostly I shoot 120 in the Rollei and a 1937 Bessa 6x9, but also started using 35mm again in a 1942 Leica IIIc. I use lenses as old as 1847 on my Chamonix 045n 4x5. There still seems to be plenty of guys like me out there who buy film.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Andrew<br>

I have shot a lot of Portra in 4X5 and I can say that yes it is a very forgiving film but 18 stops? Not a chance. I have scanned it and I have wet printed it (RA-4) and scanning is the way to go. <br>

With a hybrid workflow you have much more control over the final output then you do with the traditional printing process.<br>

I have had the pleasure and the pain of shooting with one of the newer Hasselblad H3D cameras it has about the same resolution as your D800 and at 20X30 looks better then wet printed or scanned 4X5. <br>

And let me just say that I much prefer the Fuji offerings when I can get them over the Kodak. But for some odd marketing reason I can no longer buy Fuji 4X5 color negative film here in the US.<br>

Now load some B&W 25 ISO Efke or some of my stockpile of Tech Pan into my 4X5 and you are talking about some amazingly sharp and grain free negatives.</p>

<p>Kodak has had all kinds of problems in management for decades. Selling the film division is probably a good thing for film shooters. Somebody else can run it, and do a better job at that.</p>

<p>Hey, maybe they'll bring back Kodachrome :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Hey, maybe they'll bring back Kodachrome :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You wish! (and so do I, but unlikely to happen in this universe).</p>

<p>Film may become harder to find, but Kodak's problems are the symptom, not the cause.</p>

<p>1989-91, the Anti-Fascism Defense Wall comes down and the Soviet Union breaks up. <br>

All the Second World film manufacturers are in ruins along with the other people's-owned enterprises.</p>

<p>Fast forward to 2012.<br>

The First World film manufacturers are dead and dying, and the old Second World companies like ORWO, Efke, etc. are soon to be the only ones still standing?<br>

Always excepting Fuji.</p>

<p>JDM--<br>

I have been shooting a lot of Efke 25, and have recently started shooting Fomapan. Ironic that the isolation of the Eastern block film makers that cut them off from new technology is now what makes them attractive. Fomapan is supposedly the same formulation as they started with in the 1940s. It gives me the perfect vintage look I am after with my 1942 Leica.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I look at it this way: the tube amp, vinyl records, wooden boats and balsa-and-tissue model airplanes are still "purist" or "old school" options. A lot of people love the <em>je ne sais qua</em> of older technologies and as long as that is true, there will be a market for fillm (said before in this thread). As long as I can buy decent B&W film for my Canon A series cameras, I'll be happy. I often take my A-1 along in the same bag as my D5100...</p>

<p>Have been shooting film for over 40 yrs, I have a d5100 that i really like, my backup camera is<br>

always one of my Nikon fiim cameras. They usually both serve a purpose during the day!<br>

Andy</p>

<p>Here's what I know about the current state of the consumer film industry:<br>

1. None of my family uses a film camera anymore.<br>

2. None of my friends uses a film camera anymore (I was one of the last but switched to digital at the start of 2009).<br>

3. The old practice of getting together with my friends for slide shows back in the day (many of which I had to miss due to family obligations) has been replaced by a Yahoo group started by one friend so we can share our images. As a result, I see exponentially more photographs from my friends now than I did eight or ten years ago.<br>

4. Family and friends also share exponentially more photos than they used to, with a premium placed on being able to upload images on the same day (if not immediately) to Facebook.<br>

Film has no hope of ever recapturing any of our business.</p>

<p>Have been using film for over 40 yrs, ! now also own a d5100, love it! But my back up when I go out is always one of my Nikon film cameras. They both serve me well.</p>

<p>Andy</p>

<p>5 years ago, NOT yesterday, a Photomentoring Tour to Egypt of 40 photographers had exactly one (1) of those 40 still shooting film.<br>

My point is that this is not new, nor was the transition long and drawn out once the digital cameras reached 6MP and above.</p>

<blockquote>I have shot a lot of Portra in 4X5 and I can say that yes it is a very forgiving film but 18 stops? Not a chance.</blockquote>

 

<p>Huh. Disappointed now. :-) (Still, "forgiving" sounds like what I want.) It was an estimated 18 stops of detail, not an 18 stop exposure latitude, just to clarify. And I'm assuming a drum scan to recover some of it.</p>

 

<blockquote>I have scanned it and I have wet printed it (RA-4) and scanning is the way to go.</blockquote>

 

<p>Fortunately, I'm commited to a digital workflow.</p>

 

<blockquote>With a hybrid workflow you have much more control over the final output then you do with the traditional printing process.</blockquote>

 

<p>Absolutely. Also, I don't have to get the exposure so right. Ansel I'm not (although he did plenty in post too).</p>

 

<blockquote>I have had the pleasure and the pain of shooting with one of the newer Hasselblad H3D cameras it has about the same resolution as your D800 and at 20X30 looks better then wet printed or scanned 4X5.</blockquote>

 

<p>Hmm. LL claimed this for a 60MP back. I'm not sure I'd expect it for a 36MP back, depending on my technique and acceptable grain size. Maybe I should buy a 10x8? :-)</p>

 

<blockquote>Now load some B&W 25 ISO Efke or some of my stockpile of Tech Pan into my 4X5 and you are talking about some amazingly sharp and grain free negatives.</blockquote>

 

<p>Yes - although there comes a point when I wonder whether the increased thickness of 5x4 film makes tiny grains a moot point. For all my talk of Portra and Velvia, I do intend to do some (mostly?) black and white shooting in LF. I'm just relying on that not disappearing so soon.</p>

<blockquote>Here's what I know about the current state of the consumer film industry:</blockquote>

 

<p>I agree that the majority of shots are always going to be digital, now. However, I'm someone who started (serious) photography in digital - at least, I had a DSLR before an SLR, and got an APS camera concurrently with my first digital. I'll always shoot more digital, but film still has its place for me. More so if I get a into large format (or the Mamiya rangefinders or Rolleiflexes suddenly get cheap), at least unless I suddenly inherit a scanning back. Some people go the other way, even if it's only partly. Each camera to its place. It's just a shame that film and processing are getting more expensive.</p>

 

<blockquote>5 years ago, NOT yesterday, a Photomentoring Tour to Egypt of 40 photographers had exactly one (1) of those 40 still shooting film.</blockquote>

 

<p>About the same time, at the Veolia (possibly Shell, then) Wildlife Photographer of the Year exhibition, I counted one shot on 5x4 and two (from the same person) taken with a Fuji 617. Everything else was digital. This year, there was one shot on 35mm film, and it was visibly softer (though beautifully captured) than everything else there. Times roll on. It doesn't stop me wishing I had a print of Clearing Winter Storm.</p>

<p>The problem is with the existing film quality. If the film production is relegated to "marginal" manufacturers, quality and development will be droping gradually. Second line products are far from the best of Kodak, or Ilford (older) ones. <br /> Personally, if I had to scan my film, I`d simply stopped using it.<br /> BTW, I think the lack of good, cheap scanners is also killing film.<br /> Andrew, I find way more easier and cheaper to "traditionally" print my own 4x5" sheets than to scan (I have a V750Pro) and laser/ink print them in any lab. Home digital printing is even more difficult and expensive.</p>

<p>And the VAST majority of amateur photographers have given up on film, as have so many pros. Honestly, y'all can shoot film all you want, but those of you who are bullish on the future of film are looking through what I like to call "forum eyes". The kinds of people who are buying the most products in any market sector never come near a forum like this, and have probably never heard of it. They are all shooting digital now, because it's what they can buy at Wal Mart.</p>

<p>This will, I fear, hasten the demise of the consumer film industry in small and medium format far faster than any of us might suspect. Those of us who love film probably need to start planning for the day sooner rather than later... and that situation, let's face it, is going to "trickle up" to those using large format. The costs are going to skyrocket even more.</p>

<p>If any of the larger names we know now (Kodak -or whatever it will be called-, Fuji, etc.) are still making film for 35mm cameras in 2020 I'll be shocked. If it's still something you can buy at Wal-Mart in even 2015 I'll be surprised.</p>

<p>I hope I'm wrong, even though I'll never shoot film again.</p>

<p>A good analogy is the recording industry. Many engineers and producers who VASTLY prefer the sound of analog tape are biting the bullet and going to digital, because the costs of analog tape are so ridiculously high now. The machines are no longer made (at least by the companies that used to be the mainstays in pro studios), many can no longer be serviced, the tape is largely gone and very little is made anymore.</p>

<p>What makes the film situation worse is that the manufacture and processing of film are separate processes requiring very dirty chemicals and such.</p>

<p>Andrew G.<br>

If you would like send me an email and I would be happy to FTP a high res copy of the Blad file for you to check out. Its a very impressive camera system just way over priced by my way of thinking.<br>

Michael</p>