Time to bail out?

<p>For the last three or four years I've been making slides for artists from their digital files. As the opportunity has come up, I've acquired one serious boatload of equipment. I'd have no problem imaging twenty rolls a day, and I could process and mount fifty rolls of E-6 a day without working up a sweat. The only problem is that I haven't had an order for a month.</p>

<p>Last week I called a couple of my competitors, and it doesn't sound like they're doing all that much work either, although I suppose it's possible that someone is. For most of the time I've been doing this I figured that most of the suppliers would give up on it, and hoped that possibly being the last supplier I would actually end up with a meaningful volume forever, assuming that slides would be used in some niche applications for a long time. Now I'm not so sure, and there may be half a dozen folks with the same strategy.</p>

<p>So, I'm thinking about bailing on both the digital imaging and the E-6 processing. They're taking up space I could use for other things, and when there's work it's a rush and an interruption of my other work. I know my equipment isn't worth anything, at least not enough to crate and ship it anywhere.</p>

<p>Any ideas, suggestions, or comments?</p>

<p>Van</p>

<p>where you located and what are you using? I found my Wing Lynch Pro 6 from somebody in a similar situation, and while from a professional point of view, there's not enough work to run, for an advanced hobbyist, it could be a dream come true.</p>

<p>I think that as prices for LCD projectors have come down more of the slide film diehards are giving up and going all digital. Most film recorders are no longer in use. The same way that I don't think digitally made b&w prints will ever look exactly like projection printed b&w prints I don't think digital slide projection will ever look exactly like flim slide projection. For pie charts the digital projection systems are fine. Even though we are routinely assured that digital filed are stable and long lasting when backed up and can be "migrated" to other formats later the fact is that no digital storage system now available is very stable. What if an artist no longer has images transferred to film or shoots copies of work on film? Not too many years from now the digital files will have disappeared. The same images, if kept on slide film and stored with even a little care, could last many years. Unfortunately many people are not thinking about the stability of the media. The result is that more film types will disappear. Even art museums have switched to digital capture and storage. </p>

<p>Van, its time to bail.... save some equipment for yourself if you stay with film.... Then list what you have, maybe some of us diehards will bail you out :-) I think many people who stay with film, will process themselves, low volume, small processors, etc. Film recorders seem to serve very few purposes today, as mentioned by the previous poster. <br>

The only darkroom procedure that will survive for the coming years is R-4... mainly because minilab technology has developed such a head of steam for so many years of development, as a result, there is no cheaper way to make a print, which is archival and no headaches for the end user. And is of very high quality by anyones standards.<br>

But even a die hard film person like myself..... I shoot MF and LF... yet my 50d gets more action than all my cameras combined....when I want a big print, I stitch 8 shots together in PS, its so simple, its scary. It makes me wonder why I keep al lthis LF gear. Oh yeah, shooting non static scenes, I still need that high rez, ONE SHOT capture..... oh....and the fact, all the film gear is worth pennies on ebay :-) When I keep it, I don't feel like I lost anything...how dumb...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>It sound like you are able to process E-6....I would advertise yourself for quality mail order E-6 processing. You could even have mailers. Heck, if you price was right I would try you out! There is no local place left around me so everything I do is through the mail.</p>

<p>Unless you want to open a web shop for taking in digital files to transfer to slides, I'd say that type of work, on a local basis, will be spotty. I have a mint Lasergraphics III film writer collecting dust right now.</p>

<p>I have a question. I have wet darkroom and and Digital SLR. If I wanted to make digial 35mm negatives from my JPG files how do you think they would print in a wet darkroom? If they would be no better than inkjet prints then why would I try? If you think they would be better then how much would it cost me to send you 36 JPG files and have you burn them to B&W film and have me develop and print it? I would like to try this out as Kodak Panalure is no longer around and Digial offers no negatives.</p>

<p>The reason may be that many artists no longer need slides at all. If they are submitting to art festivals, many of those events

now require digital images, either on CD or as uploads.</p>

 

<p>In fact, the <a href="https://www.zapplication.org/index.php">ZAPP</a> system (and associated standards) mean that an artist

can upload their digital files, once, and be done with it.</p>

 

<p>I know this because I just set up the viewing system for the jury for the Silverton (Oregon) Fine Arts Festival. We took only

JPEGs, no slides.</p>

<p>I just looked at your website. I live in the same state as you do. I haven't shot a whole lot of film in the last 2 months, the main reason being the weather. It's just been lousy. That may have something to do with it, maybe not. But I wouldn't say that a 1 month stretch is the final notice. Hopefully this doesn't turn into a 3 month stretch for you though.</p>

<p>I photograph a lot of artwork and high end craft. I used to shoot 30-40 rolls of slides a month routinely, now I frequently go through a whole month without shooting any. This business has gone almost entirely digital, with a minute amount of 35 mm slides and 4x5 transparencies. As others have said, more and more juried shows, galleries and museums are only accepting JPEGs and no longer considering slides, primarily because of the ease of handling a large number of entries, and this trend will only grow over time. I am not especially happy about this, in that I think most digital projection isn't very good due to low resolution and an almost total lack of calibration for color, which severely disadvantages some types of work with a lot of fine detail and subtle colors, but it is the way things are going. If I were you, I would either try and market the service nationally or get out of that part of the business. </p>

<p>If everyone were to do likewise, there would be no film recorders left anywhere. And that would be bad for people like me who are intrigued by the possibilities of working in the wet darkroom with negatives made from our digital captures.</p>

<p>If everyone shuts down and no one is left offering film recording service, one of the most convincing applications of the wet darkroom in the modern digital era--"tradigital" photographic printing--will be lost forever. And that seems counterproductive.</p>

<p>I fully intend to work from this angle in the future. I want to be able to print my digital files in the black and white darkroom without spending a fortune on a DeVere digital enlarger. I don't know for sure, but I've heard that in order to get decent output, one really has to image onto 2 1/4 film at 8k resolution. Apparently 35mm output doesn't cut it for wet printing. Have you found this to be true through your experience?</p>

<p>I'm so new at this hybrid game that I don't know a lot of the details.</p>

<p>Well, I think the final nail went in the coffin today: I learned that the national AP arts program is now accepting only digital, a year earlier than their plan just last year. That was a big chunk of digital slides, I did about two grand worth last year and one of my competitors told me he did ten, so it probably is $50-100K in work that none of us will get this year.</p>

<p>My business had always been national, I used to advertise in a couple of artists' magazines and in five years I don't think I had more than a half dozen slide orders from my local area, and I think I only processed a couple of dozen rolls of film for the local market. In speaking with a few of my competitors, I get the impression that most of them were doing more work than I was, but none of them was doing a lot more. On the straight E-6 front, I don't think I can compete with Dwaynes and A&I. I did hope that I could pick up a lot of straight processing work between Bellingham and Portland, an area that is served overnight by first-class mail, but it didn't pan out.</p>

<p>To those who are thinking about making negs from digital, there's no reason not to. The 4K film recorders I use are 11 megapixel devices, and because of the way they work that's a actually a lot better than an 11MP sensor does. An 8K recorder has an addressable resolution of 44MP, which is probably right out there at the limit for 35mm film, possibly beyond it. In order to take advantage of that you'd probably need to find a 6x7 back for the recorder, and those are still very pricey.</p>

<p>I spoke yesterday with the one remaining lab in Seattle. They're already awash in extra equipment, but there are some things in my collection that they have at least some interest in. I don't expect them to offer me much in the way of money, but I think they will organize a trip out here to pick up everything I'll let go of. Most of the stuff is difficult to ship, I'm probably way ahead to just be rid of it rather than trying to sell a few things, spending a ton of time crating it up, and still having some gear to scrap.</p>

<p>Which brings me to the next logical decision: What about my film cameras? I bought the Calumet C400 several years ago, but have never had a single order for 4x5 transparencies. And if I can't soup my own film, what's the point of keeping the F3/MD4 and F4s? I'll miss the feel and sound of the F3, and the F4 was a delightful tool as well, but I don't think I've loaded a roll of film in either of them for a year now.</p>

<p>It was fun, and fascinating, while it lasted. Five years ago I was fighting the learning curve to soup E-6, now I'm an expert. Expert in a field for which there isn't any market. I don't regret the adventure, although I wish it had been more lucrative!</p>

<p>Van</p>

<p>Van, thanks for sharing much of that information, sad.... but we all feel your pain.... but it seems you are a realist, and that helps in life. (of course, I need to take a dose of my own medicine here :- ) </p>

<p> I too look at tons of my film gear that is useless. I still do some film occasionaly, and often buy stuff for spare parts. <br>

What film recorder do you know of that produces 8k on 35mm? I think you meant 8k for MF.<br>

What E-6 processor were you using?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Technology substitution is tough. That is why I no longer work at Kodak. If artists are switching to digital, then you can either find new markets or shut up shop. </p>

<p>Here's one possability that might be worth a shot since you already have the equipment. Before I left Kodak I participated in a group (of film die hards) who studied the best way to archive image collections. I've written about this more than once in these forums. Our conclusion was that the best way for amateurs to archive images for future generations was to put put the images on Ektachrome dupe film. When I left Kodak I investigated the possability of starting a business to provide this service. My conclustion at the time was that there was a potential market there, but it would take a lot of advertising and education to get it going. There was also the danger that if I was successful, then labs with deeper pockets could quickly take over the market.</p>

<p>If this doesn't suit your needs and you want to unload the equipment, contact me via email. I know someone who is interested in acquiring a film recorder.</p>

<p>Bill, the Polaroid ProPalette 8000 family, including the base 8000 and the 8035, run at 8K. The 7000s I have been using go to 4K, as do the HR 6000s I had before these. The big difference there is that the 6000s have a 3.5" diagonal CRT for imaging while the 7000 and 8000 use a 7" tube. On eBay the 8000 still seems to attract pretty reasonable prices, from $400-800.</p>

<p>Ron, I bought a Forox slide duplicator several years ago because all the other slide vendors seemed to offer duplication. It's a very nice unit, runs off 100-foot rolls, has a holder for the original that has screw drives for precise positioning, a Nikon bellows and lens, all the color balance controls, etc. I've never used the thing. I seriously doubt that it's going anywhere other than a landfill. But that's for copying other transparent images. If you mean doing it digitally, I don't think dupe film would be the way to go unless you could get your hands on the tools to generate film profiles that a film recorder would understand. My software has profiles for a dozen films, I've only used the Sensia and Astia profiles. All of the profiles listed are, I believe, for 100-speed film. I'm not sure how readily that could be adapted to ISO 6 or whatever the dupe film is!</p>

<p>Van</p>

<p>The choice of EDupe film was theoretical. We never got the funding to run practical trials. EDupe would have better grain and sharpness, if there is enoujgh light to expose it.</p>

<p>While many CRT film recorders will <em>address </em> 8k, there are none in my research that can actually resolve it on 35mm film due to shortcomings of the design. We were early adoptors of this technology with our first film recorder purchased in 1984 and we've had many along the way. I consulted and tested for the engineers at Imapro and Agfa over the years as well. We have special software to create our own brightness LUTs and we make our own ICC profiles. I currently operate two 16k CRT film recorders, one is from MGI and the other a unique design from the Agfa engineers who designed the Alto as well as an LVT recorder and I'm sorry to tell you that the CRT design is not able to resolve 8k on 35mm stock. You may see slightly smoother edges, but it's actually blurring due to flare and not increased sharpness. On larger stock, like 4x5 there's some difference at 8k with these machines, but then the LVT blows it away. Nothing comes close to that.</p>