Still think film is here to stay?

Those who are still using film, especially B&W film might like to

note that today Kodak announced that they will no longer be producing

any more B&W printing paper. Not enough demand to make a profit on it.

 

This realy isn't good news for anyone still interested in shooting

film.

 

I'm sure others will step in and fill the hole in what's left of the

market, but it's a bad sign in general and a sign of changing times I

guess.

 

What would you pick as the next product on which the Kodak axe will

fall? Kodachrome? Any B&W film other than Tri-X?

No more Azo?

I suspect that the rise of decent B&W inkjet printers drove the last nail in the coffin. Anyone still printing wet is likely using something more exotic or cheaper than kodak papers.

I heard the announcement was just that they wouldn't be producing the paper **BASE** in-house anymore but would still produce the papers via a 3rd party paper manufacturer under the Kodak name.

See the threads in the <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/forum?topic_id=1542">B&W printing forum</a> for more information.

<p>

It's not so much the loss of the paper that's a worry, but the further indication that Kodak doesn't value the analog film business much anymore since profits are dropping (and/or losses are increasing) and anything that's not making them much money is on the chopping block. As digital continues to grow, more and more of Kodak's film products will likley find themselves out of a job, and closing down film production facilities may well result in loss of some products as an incidental consequence.

<p>

I think it's becoming pretty obvious that whatever "mediaspeak" statements Kodak make about support analog photography are just smoke and mirrors. About the only statement you can believe is that they will fully support all existing analog film products up until the moment they decide to cut them!

<p>

I can't blame Kodak. They're goal is to make money, not support analog photography. They're a public company, not a not-for-profit foundation to keep film alive.

I would hardly call Ilford, Bergger, and Oriental more exotic or cheaper than Kodak.

I even doubt tri-x is immune to it. Who shoot tri-x without printing on silverbased paper?

From the Boston Herald:

<p>

<em>Daniel A. Carp, Kodak's chairman, said yesterday that the fate of the Peabody plant, which makes gelatin material for traditional camera film, is under review - like other units as Kodak moves more deeply into the Digital Age.

<p>

Appearing at Boston College's Chief Executives' Club, Carp said Kodak is only halfway through a strategic transition from primarily a film company to digital photo technology - and the Peabody plant ``will get caught in that process.'' </em>

The only films I've been shooting are Fuji Reala, Fuji NPZ and Ilford XP-2 in 120. As long as there's a C-41 machine in my store, I can shoot the film, process it, scan it and print it digitally.

 

 

My wet darkroom has been gone for over a year. But I haven't used Kodak B&W papers since the late 1970s.

I am really glad I bought a freezer when we built our new home in 2002. Now it will have to hold a lot more paper than film. A lot more.

I do all of my prints digitally, even those from black and white film. I don't use traditional black and white paper but sometimes have a custom lab do enlargements on them. Most of my friends who I know to do black and white in the darkroom use Ilford papers, so probably they're still made for a while.

 

I used to think that digital darkroom is not good for making fine black and white prints but the inkjets are now more black and white friendly than they used to be; Epson makes a 3-gray(black) printer (R2400) and the R800/R1800 have a very small drop size which helps with the results. I also got a better scanner which gives incredibly good scans of my BW400CW film (LS-5000) and basically I run ICE, and do a bit of curves adjustment to get the film (which by default has a low contrast), basically I do an "s-curve" adjustment in Photoshop and then print it, and I love the results.

 

So nowadays you can get "the film look" by shooting your favorite film and scan it and print it on a nice inkjet and the results are really nice and it's easier to control dust and do minor retouching to the scans. I still don't like digital capture for black and white but maybe later I will figure out how to do it so that the results are pleasing to my eye if necessary. But having one physical hardcopy (the film itself) makes me a lot more relaxed about the future of my images. I know that optical disks are good but still I somehow like the idea of having multiple options for making the prints.

 

Is there any news about Ilford paper? It seems to be very widespread in photo stores so someone has to do traditional darkroom black and white as well.

Yes even if Kodak isn't.

Hi,

 

perhaps photography has branched out a few new mutant digital limbs and is growing 'well' now, but don't forget where it started, with film.

There is usually a good reason for people to continue using a process which has been in place for a long time.

So, although the media may advertise the demise of film, I can still buy film. In fact, I can still buy sheet music that was written 300 years ago, although I now prefer listening to jazz.

 

I think that real B+W will become a real Art in the sense that it is so different from what most people do. Whilst people are unpgrading from the latest digital back to the next, feeding the fat cats, I will be shooting film until there is no more film to shoot.

 

Film is here to stay, because it will become a valuable art form.

 

Takes time to tango.

Interesting! Go to this site and scroll to the bottom to read the message dated 9-1-2004.

 

http://www.bestlab.com/sanmig09.html

 

What now?

I honestly don't see much point to traditional black and white film anyway. If you want a monochrome image, you get a lot more control shooting color (whether a scanned color negative or a digital camera file) and converting it to monochrome. That option provides a nearly infinite choice of "color filters," tonality, and rendition.

 

Silver-based black and white film and paper indeed have their own distinctive characteristics that some photographers will always prefer, but unfortunately the demand for that isn't sufficient to make it worthwhile for any company that has to answer to the demands of institutional investors for consistent quarterly performance. That's an unfortunate fact that affects many things. But at least there are viable alternatives for those who prefer monochrome.

<em>[kodak dropping bw stuff] This realy isn't good news for anyone still interested in shooting film.</em>

<p>

While I do believe this bw dropping news is important (especially if co-ordinated with the other recent Kodachrome 8mm movie picture <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00COW2&unified_p=1">dropping</a>) I don't fear it to the point of 35mm-film-for-the-masses disappearing anytime before 20-50 years.

<p>

Given that bw first-hand products are disappearing one should wonder which colour product - film or DSLR - will be the best replacement (the easiest to transform in bw). And then immediately wonder which color product is the most faithfully reproducing "color". And I have very strong doubts that software of any form is able and stable enough to really reproduce "color", just like software is not able to reproduce "thinking".

<p>

For generations peoples' minds are formed to a certain recipe of color reproduction (how amazing that relatively untrained brains easily recognize paintings of 16th century from 19th's; movies of the 60's from the 80's). But the cycles of digital software/hardware are changing much faster than that, so colors are likely to offer moods with much shorter lifespans. Well, I like impressions that last more than just a software cycle.

<p>

Yes, IMHO 35mm film is here to stay until digital software and hardware reach a level of stability compared to physics and chemistry (which are mature sciences). IMHO. And not particularly inclined to discuss digital versus film...

<em>How about a conspiracy theory.</em>

<p>

That is not a conspiracy theory (like Lady D accident provoked by some insane underground group ruling the world). That is a matter of facts today - it is quite fashionable to "go digital", obviously pleasing share holders. Reminds me of talk of "dinosaur" mainframe computers killed by PCs (a pattern comically reproduced in a recent Microsoft ad where "dinosaurs" are the people not always connected to the Internet). Ok, it brings revenues in - fresh money, new action.

This isn't only bad for film shooters; it's bad for digital B&W enthusiasts too. I've been

avoiding buying an inkjet while I wait for Adorama to start doing wet B&W prints from

digital files. Now I wonder whether Adorama will go forward with that service at all.

 

Might be time to give up and buy an inkjet.

Bob;

 

The strange thing about that is the fact that there is no mention of it in the Rochester paper either yesterday or today. Things like that are usually on our front page or on the business page.

 

I have a hard time believing that, particularly since most B&W paper is made in Brazil. Maybe they are just dropping it in the US, IDK, not having seen anything with my own eyes.

 

Ron Mowrey

Ron - the word is that the are shutting down the factory in Brazil.

 

A number of people on a number of websites report calling Kodak directly about this and being told that it is true, as well as dealers reporting they have received a FAX on the subject.

 

I doubt Kodak is anxious that everyone hear about this ASAP, but I expect they'll make some sort of statement soon.

 

I would not be amazed to find that Kodak's medium term plans are to shift everything to C-41 and do only chromogenic B&W. Then they could get rid of B&W film, paper and B&W chemicals and concentrate on the last remaining film technology that's likely to generate revenue (C-41) until interest in that drops to a point where it's not economic to sustain it. I suspect that C-41 will be with us for the forseeable future though, but with a limited choice of film.

 

Presumably there will be other companies still making B&W film and chemicals even when Kodak eventually gets out of the game.

They have issued a statement. As it does mention their facility is in Brazil, I can only infer that it is being discontinued world wide.

 

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050615/kodak_paper.html?.v=5

Color film converted to black and white does not look at all like black and white film. You need to shoot one class of a larger film format to compensate for the grainier and softer structure of color film (than equivalent technology black and white film). It's easy to try: shoot 400UC and BW400CN side by side, and the prints from the black and white film and much sharper and more detailed.

 

To be able to do high quality B&W from color negative film basically requires using at least 120, preferably sheet film. With digital converted to black and white, you don't get grain but the image is very soft.

 

Yes you have some control over the weighting of the different dyes but this is not exactly the same as having a black and white film in the first place, or controlling it with filters.

For 6 years now my primary black and white films have been C-41 based, just because they are easier to get good scans of, and although some might not like the low contrast it gives by default, it's easy to fix in Photoshop. I think the difficult scannability of traditional black and white film is one of the reasons it is going down in sales.

 

There is also a difference between reducing the variety of products available and eliminating the last product of its type in the field. I've often wondered how Kodak can afford to keep so many iso 100 Ektachromes, Kodachromes, and black and white film types (out of different ages) but then I realize that these have loyal user bases. I suspect that this is just a question of having fewer products available ... it's natural and a healthy procedure.

 

I complained a lot about Kodak getting rid of Portra 400BW which was my favourite of the black and white films. But now that I accidentally bumped into some of that film and bought 10 rolls of it, and shot it next to some newer BW400CN, I realized that the latter seems to produce less grainy and more neutral results in the digital darkroom while the Portra had a brown tint and more grain. The minilab prints from the Portra were better though. Although we might not see our favorite products continue to be produced forever, the substitute products can be quickly adapted digitally to produce the results that we need. I'm very happy with BW400CN for scanning and printing.

Well I guess there are still those who print B&W negatives, so ease of scanning isn't an issue for them (not to bring up what they are going to print it on...).

 

Then there are those who like to process film at home. C-41 is a pain compared to HC-110.

 

Then there are those who like to shoot HIE and TMZ3200.

 

Chromogenic films aren't for everyone (yet).

Bob,

 

Thanks for the news, but it would help you to know that KODAK is a publicly traded company, and profit margins always guide research & development, in particular for a company like KODAK which has struggled financially for the past five years. They introduced a new CEO a few months ago, who is only interested in slashing costs, which of course, leaves certain developments to be left off the wagon to keep their operation light and profitable. How knows if in time, KODAK sells their film operations altogether to a competitor. KODAK is hurting, but there are still people using B&W film with or without KODAK. There will always be B&W printing, who cares that KODAK announced they won't make B&W paper anymore.