Jump to content

What is the future of 4x5 film photography?


markus_albertz

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

 

I am very interested in what some of the advanced 4x5 amtateurs or

professionals think about the future of 4x5 film. I dare to

consider myself something like an advanced amateur and have recently

invested into a 4x5 field camera outfit. My primary interest is

fine art landscape photography (have done 35mm mostly). I am aware

that digital backs for 4x5 view camera cost really big bucks, so

this is certainly no alternative to film anytime soon for me.

However, I wonder what the lab support (film processing,

availability of chemicals for personal darkrooms) will look in say

ten years from now. I guess it is hard to tell how this will

project into the future, but I am curious to hear what the LF folks

think that have been around in this area much longer than myself.

Thank you very much for your thoughts on this...Markus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Markus- I get this question a fair amount in the classes I teach

at my local community college. I feel like this: It'll be what we

decide to make it. By that I mean that Kodak, Ilford, Agfa etc. will

always have film ends, and there will always be LF shooters who

value this enough, that someone will step up to the plate and

become an outlet for odd sized films. Take Michael Smith as an

example. Kodak says they're done with AZO and Michael loved

this product enough to buy enough to fill Kodak's minimum to

keep producing it. Now he's the distributor and I suspect has

generated more interest then Kodak ever did. A win-win . I hope

that the same thing happens to LF films when the need arises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Markus,

You raise some very good questions. I can understand your concern. My feelings are that it will be far longer then your and my lifetime before film ceases to be used. In fact quite the opposite seems to be occuring with many of the older alternative means of photography seeing a greater then ever resurgence. I am speaking of Carbon, Albumen, Platinum-Paladium, Salt prints, Cyanotypes etc. These means of printing seem to benefit the most directly and, I might add, most inexpensively from negatives which are generated in camera and on photographic film. The availability of chemistry will be an necessary supplement to the use of film. In fact, I have within the past year turned to mixing my chemicals insofar as developers, stop bath, and fixer from the raw materials. There is an enjoyable increase in satisfaction, for me, in the return to what once was the norm. While I do not have a crystal ball, those are my honest feelings. Good luck to you in your photography.

 

Best regards,

 

Donald Miller

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Markus,

 

You will probably get many different points of view on this. I was where you are about a year and a half ago, and decided at that time the future for 4x5 wouldn't go black any time soon. By soon, I mean 10 or more years. I think film, processing and chemicals will be available for at least that amount of time, but predicting the future is anybody�s guess. The degree of uncertainty did not stop me from buying my system and learning the format.

 

Welcome to LF, and enjoy the ride, make some photos, and don't worry about film going away anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Markus. Wait....let me look in my crystal ball. Serioiusly I work in a film dependent job. I have a walk in freezer with $100,000+ worth of Kodak High Speed Ektachrome 35mm/ 1200 ft rolls. I have been poo pooing digital right along until they made that movie the other day. Star Wars. The one that never saw an ounce of film from inception to theater playback. I consider that a wake-up call. If the movie industry follows that path rapidly I predict Kodak will abandon all film at some point. Even in the quantities I use I'm like a fly speck on the Titanic compared to the movie industry. I don't think LF film will evaporate overnight, but I'll tell you what. I've got a little over 1000' of 5" aerial recon roll film in the deep freeze so that I can pursue my passion at least until I'm 88. I'm also collecting glass plate holders in the ULF sizes so that when that day comes, I can turn the clock back to 1865 and coat my own. Every one will say I'm a nut case but we'll see in 20 years. The real truth is that as long as there's a market somebody somewhere will make the stuff. (More parts available for Model A Fords now than 50 years ago) The Eastern Europe mfrs like Efke are examples of that. Color? Another story. And perhaps rightfully so. The computer is the logical place for color.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the others have stated, it's hard to say and to a large extent up to us. I would guess at some point film will move into a small, non-mainstream market and if enough of us continue to use it and make it profitable someone will fill the need. I don't have anything against digital, but I rather not drag a bunch of electronics into the woods. I work with electronics and computers all day at work. So photography is a way to get away from that to some extent. I do think the printing that's being done now like Lightjet is pretty sweet, but as to shooting I like the simplicity of shooting film.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have a horizon of about 10 years, within which I hope that LF can be done without massive inconvenience, if at all. I can easily imagine sheet film drying up more or less instantly, due to any number of financial reasons, some unrelated to photography proper.

 

My reaction was to immediately buy a 4x5 setup, and now I have an 8x10 in the mail. Now's the time to do LF, for tomorrow it may die.

 

Sorry to be so negative, but I always look at the worst-case scenario, it's my software background...

 

CXC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do mostly B&W. All of what I do is for myself so I need to please no one else. Easier that way.

 

1) Chemicals? I can get most of what I need from non-photographic places. The only thing that worries me is metol. Awhile back I checked out the info given out by a chemical company on thier chemicals. The photo grade was the least pure they sell. So chemicals don't worry me.

 

2) Film and paper last a long time. Worse case fill the darkroom fridge. Buy an extra freezer.

 

 

I'm more worried about equipment but worse case I'll stock up on things like enlarger bulbs. My 4x5 camera is old. Some of my lenses even older. If I don't drop the lenses they'll keep working just fine. Worse case I go to the trouble of building my own camera to mount that lens. Not impossible in the LF world.

 

IMHO worst case you'll be buying paper,film etc from art shops. Learn to do all you can yourself. Figure out ways to do things in non-standard ways. Look for sources that aren't really aimed at photographers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about it like this. Weigh a piece of 4x5 film. Now, weigh a 4x5 digital scanning back (include everything you need to take a picture, just like film). The 20 lb. difference is what's going to keep landscape people using film.

 

It's not an argument about resolution, or dynamic range, or capture speed - it's about what do you have to pack into the woods. It's going to be a really long time before digital capture can deliver the information from my 4x5 negative, for the same weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B & W, I don't see that going away anytime soon. B & W materials aren't that complicated. A smaller company could make B & W for the diehards and there's enough obsessives around that someone would make materials to use. Color is a bit more involved I could see it going bye-bye overnight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Markus, If the big boys find that film isn't turning a profit, they'll no doubt quit making it. With more and more commercial photography being digital that is likely. LF pretty much rides on the coattails of high volume users(advertising, medical x-rays, aerial outfits, military). As long as we're buying sheet film there remains a viable market, and someone will step in to fill the demand...OTOH, look at whats available now! Bergger, Efke, Foma, Forte, Fuji, Ilford, Kodak, Agfa, and who knows what else is out there? If LF is truly playing it's swan song I think the ranks of manufacturers would have started thinning out by now. Perhaps we'll be more limited as to whats available in sizes and emulsions, and the cost will probably go up, but LF will still be around. As Jim Galli pointed out, we can always go back to coating glass plates if need be. Roll with the punches and enjoy your photography! Digital will only make "traditional" photography a more rare and, I hope, more appreciated art form. Consider that the MOOG synthesizer hasn't, as far as I know, put any Philharmonic Orchestras out of business.-------------Cheers!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, stuff gets discontinued, but right now LF is a growing area. There are more new LF cameras out than there have ever been. Schneider is designing new lenses for LF. The guys at the B&H film counter seem to be remarking that sheet film and Polaroid sales are increasing. Quickload and Readyload have added convenience for users without a darkroom. Ultra-Large format is seeing a resurgence. For those who need and can afford high-end digital, it is there and fits on the back of a camera that can also shoot film, just as sheet film can fit into a glass plate holder with a film insert.

 

I've got my 11x14" negs hanging on the line, and I'm not worried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the personal darkrooms, I agree with the earlier posters that black and white will be around for years to come. As far as color is concerned, paper and chemicals for printing from negatives (RA-4 or equivalent) will continue to be available for quite a few years because of the commercial processing for the many 35mm and disposable cameras in use. My understanding is that the Fuji Frontier processors scan slides and use that digital information to control lasers that expose their RA-4 compatible paper. This is another reason that color negative printing will continue. Kodak has discontinued the R-3000 chemistry which was used for direct reversal printing of slides. I have been unable to find any of the R-3000 equivalent chemistry being currently manufactured. (The minimum size for the R-3 is 12.5 gallons and it requires a re-exposure to light for the reversal.) At least for now, if you want to make a print directly from a slide the only process that I am aware of is Ilfochrome.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I shoot color transparency, and I agree that I am more endangered than B&W shooters. On the other hand, you can still buy 5x7 film pretty readily, so clearly small markets can hold on. Given that I print digitally, as long as I have one good transparency film available I am OK. I don't forsee any problems, other than rising costs for the next 5 years, and I believe that 10 years from now, there will be at least one color film still available in sheets. Before that, I will be shopping for a 25-40 MP digital system. It won't be LF, I suspect the sensor will be no larger than the current high end Sinar and Fuji sensors, about 40x50mm, so I will need a very different camera and lenses. But it will be small and light and won't consume any more of my retirement funds than my 403B has in the last year.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to an article I just read, Kodak noted that film sales

were down 3% last year and they expect a further reduction of

5% this year. I think the only thing you will find is film getting

more expensive as sales turn down. Now I wonder what Kodak

is going to do with those old coating machines?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kodak sales for disposable cameras and film were down 9% for January alone... Analysts and research groups are reporting Kodak as a take over target.... so M&A may be beginning... it is a matter of which companies are left standing at the end of the day... Yikes I have only been photographing for 6 weeks and soon it will be time to hoard Tri-X... which incidentally I had only been using for 2 weeks before I found out it was the OLD Tri-X
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought provoking question.

 

Personally, I separate the LF issue from the film question. I think there will always be demand for a camera with tilts/swings and superior (LF-like) resolution. If you accept this then the question becomes will we get a reasonable LF digital back before the reduced volume causes the price of film to rise prohibitively?

 

Personally, I�d love to see a 4x5 or even an 8x10 digital back. It would be a lot easier to skip the scan. But the technology has a long-long way to go before we get to an affordable 4x5 digital back. As I see it, the best digital technology today at several thousands of dollars is not yet as good as the resolution of a $500 35mm set up. I don�t even know where the physical limits are to improving the technology but if you project a 2x improvement in density every 2 years and (less frequently) an improvement in sensor size... Do the math. How long will it take before we have a back with 15 x the area of today�s state of the art sensor? In 8 years we get 16 times today�s density but the sensor size has to grow too. Then there are the weight and battery factors. I think the manufacturing limits for this and the market size are going to make this an unprofitable endeavor for a long while.

 

So will there be sufficient demand to support LF film manufacturing and processing? Yes. I think that the most likely scenario is that the price of film and processing will go up�but film won�t go away. I sure hope that�s the worst-case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike Bill, I don't think that (at least for color) you can separate the future of film from the future of LF.

 

Single shot digital backs are NEVER going to be 4x5 inches. There is absolutely no need to make them that large to achieve the equivalent quality of 4x5 film. Pro's are already using both 6MP and 11MP 35mm digital sensors to replace MF film. I have seen stunning enlargements up to 20x24. While the finest detail of MF isn't there, the smooth tonal scales and lack of grain actually look equal to or better to the eye than equivalent MF. Sure, there will be scanning backs that image 3x4 inches or so, but single shot, portable digital sensors aren't going to need to get bigger than 6x4.5 cm or so. They don't need to be bigger and nobody could afford them anyway. Fuji is already developing a 4x5cm imager that will produce about 5Kx7K output pixels. That will make a stunning 20x24" print on a LightJet. At the present, half of those pixels are interpolated, but in a year or two there will be 40M real pixels and 80M interpolated. At that point, 4x5 color film becomes dispensable.

 

I DO suspect that LF, and ULF will continue in B&W where small runs of film are possible by small companies, but in a decade, I can't see where there will be any significant demand, outside of nature/landscape photography, for color sheet film. At that point, supply and diversity will shrink rapidly as prices climb.

 

The digital color landscape camera of 2015 won't be 4x5, but probably something along the lines of the late Hasselblad ArcBody or Silvestri cameras. Digital lenses from Schneider and Rodenstock, some movements. But with the much shorter focal length lenses, use of tilt will become much less important with wide angle lenses, as some signifcant DOF will be available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This pertains to film in general, not just 4x5 but I thought it was intresting. It is a snip from another forum .....

"Strange, but I've met many students raised with digital cameras and Photoshop that switch to film SLRs in college. It appears they've had enough of computers and electronics and enjoy getting their hands "wet" in the darkroom. I've also noticed a similar trend among workers stuck on a computer all day at work. It's nice to have a hobby--photography--away from the dad burn computer screen. Thus, they'll keep buying film cameras too."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can agree with Dan's response. I've had to delve into

computers, (2 systems), software ( don't get me started) and

html, and it is at the point that that I am totally tired of it. I feel like

I'm doing more computer work and less real photography. If only

I had the funds for someone to do it for me. What I find is that

there is no anticipation factor in the digital end of things like

there is in traditional photography which seems more enjoyable.

Has digital photography turnd you off as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The guys at the B&H film counter seem to be remarking that sheet film and Polaroid sales are increasing."

 

I don't doubt that they're taking sales from other shops. B&H is simply prospering in the global marketplace. (And bully for them.)

 

But there's no evidence that overall sales of film are up, let alone that existing LF users are shooting more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you shoot color neg or chrome you will find, or maybe starting to find that pro labs are either closing down, limiting operating hours, or simply selling their Refremas, Hopes, or whatever line they have running. It will become like Kodachrome, where you will have to ship your film to one of the remaining processors. How soon? Who knows, but it will happen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The PC made my typewriter obsolete. The Global Positioning System made my sextant obsolete. Digital will make my Nikon F/N80 obsolete within, at most, a couple of years. I spoke with someone at Really Right Stuff yesterday who told me that they won't be making an L quick release plate for the Nikon 80 because they have to concentrate on "the rapid move to digital". For medium and large format, it's just a matter of time, and I suspect less time than many people would like to think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is definitely a digital backlash already building. People are getting sick of spending their lives on their butts in front of the puter. Now puter advances could obviate this by automating much of what is done on the puter ... editing ... but when you go out for a weekend and take 500 shots as opposed to say six or eight rolls and the digital shooter is faced with hours and hours of downloading/uploading, manipulating etc while the film shooter can edit an entire roll of slides on a light table in a few minutes ... I think there will always be a lot of people who stick with film.

 

Now whether or not that's going to keep Kodak afloat? Who knows?

 

The other factor is the retirement years of the Baby Boom generation. I think the hobbyist and fine-art section of the photography world will be cooking along at a good clip for the next twenty years. Still this may not be enough action to keep all the film manufacturers up and running.

 

I don't think film will ever go away for the same reasons that oil painting, saxaphones and theater performances will never go away. Do we actually think that animation will fully replace the Katherine Zeta Joneses and Mel Gibsons of cinema? It WILL be expensive though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...