Film availability

[terry_evans3]

Hello all,

Are you conident in the 120 film and processing availability for the future?

I have both film and digital cameras and thinking of sell it all to finance a

single more expensive system. I acctually prefer film, I just understand it

better. Thank you, Terry

[eric friedemann]

Well, of course 120 Kodachrome is long gone. And its become a pain in the butt- and expensive- to get 120 E-6 processed where I'm at west of Chicago. We have to send E-6 120 to an outlab that does a so-so job.

 

 

The store I work at will process 120 C-41 films into the forseeable future. We still process a ton of 35mm C-41 film and it isn't like we'd get a bunch of $$$ selling a used C-41 machine anyway.

 

 

I'm not parting with my Mamiya 7IIs any time soon. Obviously, though, not knowing where you live and what kind of film you're looking to shoot, its hard to give you reassurances.

[dickhilker]

If you've been following some of the discussions here, Terry, you've no doubt noticed that there have been several new pro films introduced recently. It follows that Kodak and Fuji must feel there'll be a continuing market for them if they've gone to the expense of researching and producing them. Though digital may well replace much of the 35mm film business, there should be enough folks with a lot of fine film cameras to sustain even that medium for a while.

 

Though digital is the only kind of photography most newcomers know, those of us with a legacy of film equipment and standards that aren't willing to bend to the level of digital images will provide a market for at least as long as it takes digital to eventually catch up. It doubtless will, but I wouldn't rush out and make a change just yet. The processing may become the largest problem, with the manufacturers perhaps going back to the early Kodak model of providing both film and all the processing.

[leicaglow]

Terry, The Classic and B&W Film forums here give me a lot of comfort. While I used to see all the films disappearing, I'm feeling more assured by seeing reports of so many popping up, either with other makers and distributors, or new formulations. My strategy is to do most of my digital work with my Nikon DSLRs, and continue using my Hasselblad and LF equipment for film until a suitable (read affordable) digital solution is available. The Hasselblad CFD back at $10K almost puts me there. Put me down in the "I'm not worried about film" category.

[eric friedemann]

I wouldn't look to manufacturers' willingness to market updated films as any sort of guaranty that you'll be able to get them processed. In the 1980s, Kodak introduced an extensive line of Pro Kodachrome- including 120- while it was shutting down a number of Kodachrome processing lines in its own labs.

 

 

There's no maybe about processing being the threshold issue. We've witnessed a renaissance in E-6 films in the last few years while, at the same time, tons of E-6 lines across the country have shut down- five within 25 miles of my store alone.

[ranong]

i shoot 120 and larger formats cause it provides me with the best results.....top quality results. i think both film and digital should/can exist together.

 

if we all keep shooting film there will be film and processing!

 

eddie

[spanky]

Support Ilford. They are the only major player that seem sincere when they say they are committed to keeping traditional b&w alive.

Lesser known brands like Efke are hit or miss when it comes to QC and consistancy. My recent rolls of 120 Efke 100 are certainly not the same as their last batch which I used a year or so ago. Waaayy too grainy compared to the older negs. Thank you Freestyle for your very liberal return policy.

[larrydressler]

Go both ways. Check out the new K10D and keep your 120 equipment... I know I will and I will also also do my own processing for B&W.... my C-41 in 120 will still be a local lab..... Larry is not slow he is just around

 

Larry

 

Larry<div></div>

[pics]

If you prefer film and understand it, than the choice should be simple (at least for me.) Digital shooters don't flinch at spending thousands of dollars on cameras, printers, software, etc. that they will most likey not be using 10 years down the road, so the price of a film setup that will most likely last you until the final days of film pales in comparison. Nothing lasts forever whether it be film and processing or the current digital imaging technology. I wouldn't let this be the deciding issue on how you choose to create your images.

[robert_mccann]

I'm with MArk- support Ilford! their films are wonderful, with excellent quality control and

a wide enough variety to keep you happy whatever you shoot.

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

The film is becoming expensive, and in some cases discontinued, but not as expensive as paper. Almost nothing is cheaper than $1 a sheet of 11x14, and it's only going to get more expensive and scarce, by the way it looks.

[thomas_sullivan]

I have, and use, both digital and film cameras. And, I don't think you should sell it all and buy into a great film (only) system. Digital is only going to get better and better as the years go by, and film is only going to get more and more expensive (or even get to the point manufacturers can't make a profit from it and stop completely). <br><br>When?....your guess is as good as abybody else's......but it will happen. Film HAS to be made in certain volumes or it's not even worth cranking up the production line. When demand does not equal that amount of production, manufactureres will stop. <a href="http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=345100"><u>British Journal of Photography</u></a><br><br>

 

If you want a new system in the medium format arena....make it a system that can accomadate both film and ditigal bodies/backs.....which, kinda means Hasselblad I believe.

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

"film is only going to get more and more expensive (or even get to the point manufacturers can't make a profit from it and stop completely)."

 

They won't stop as long as there is enough demand. I think color film is definitely on its way out; B&W will have a longer life, maybe even as long as photography exists. It's just different, and different is what people want.

[thomas_sullivan]

Dan....you know I like Black & White Film as much or more than you do. But, I think that the concept that as long as there is a demand, there will be B&W film being made has it's pitfalls. First, you say "people" want different and b&w film will give them that. The truth of the matter is that "photographic artists, or hobbyists" want different. Not people in general. Yes, I want B&W film to last forever. However, when it comes to an image making machine, the general public, first of all wants color, the could care less about shooting their pics in B&W. Second, they want easy. What's easier than hooking the cam up to a printer and selecting the pics you want printed....or dropping off the memory card and having CVS print the ones you mark for printing....Pict Bridge and something else i forget the name of allows that quite easily. And if they own a computer, the whole process gets even easier. Half the programs that come with those cams have editting software with a button called "fix it all" and is quite good enought for most people.

 

I know theyy aren't photographers per say.........but, they are the masses who buy probably 95% of the digital SLRs, digital P&S's, and Camera Phones. Ok they were also the masses that didn't buy Black & White film either.

 

So, lets go to the people, the real photographers, who used b&w film and now went at least partially digital. How many use digitally captured images and convert them to B&W? There's are an emmense amount of converts to this practice. Just look over in the digital darkroom forum here and see how much talk is about this subject. Conservatively I'd estimate that at least 50% have converted to this method.

 

That leaves half of the Devoted B&W users. I won't even mention the ones that Stopped B&W when they went digital.....I know there are some, but I can't guess at the percentage. Regardless, it lowers the amount of people using b&w film

 

Do the digital only younger crowd going back to b&w make up for any of this..........probably. So, let's just say B&W film users have not changed at all........although I highly doubt it, but I'll concede for the moment.

 

So, out of the 5% of the true art/hobby photographers left after you subtract the common person photographer.........what, 20% shoot B&W film? That's 1% of the entire photographic world that shoots B&W film.

 

Even if my percentages are off..........they ain't off much. Of all the people you know that use some sort of camera.......all your relatives, all you siblings friends........how many shoot B&W film? Forget your art/hobby photography friends for now. How many common, not really interested in photography, people shoot B&W film? ZERO! None. Zilch. Now, how many shoot film? In my family it is 1 person. Everybody else has digital cam phones, digital cameras.........or, another format I haven't even mentioned yet........digital camcorders (and this number is increasing rapidly......more than I ever saw film movie cameras in the past)

 

Anyhow, ALL the above is just to point out how little demand there really is for B&W film.

 

I personally would like to see it stay around forever, but i am also being practical about all this. Demand goes down, price goes up. Unfortunately, the equipment and processes to make black and white film require a minimum run to even make turning the equipment on, profitable.........regardless of demand. So, at what price will that be? If you compare it to vinyl records and CDs...........which is not really the best comparison, but it's the only one I know the numbers on. When CDs came into vogue LPs were costing about $10 for a consumer grade vinyl. CDs were about $20...I believe. Rapidly CD took over and on sale these days (about 23 years later), you can get one on sale for $12....new release. Today, you can still get vinyl, on the web or mail order only. You cannot get consumer vinyl at all. You have to buy the higher grades of vinly and a lot of the times you have to buy a 1/2 speed master recording. What's all that mean? It means you can only get the best vinyl and recordings anymore..........$30 to $40 per platter, starting price. That's 3-4 times what I use to get a recording for when CDs essentially took over. And personally, I think that is a gift, because the firms that sell LPs today are also the only distributers of turntables........again, you can only buy the better turntables........so, they are probably able to keep the vinyl prices relatively low because they are selling you the turntable and needle and cartridge and record cleaning machine also.

 

Film and digital are at the point now where LPs and CDs were 23 years ago. Film is just starting to disappear from the store shelves..........and you pay what....$3 for a 36 exposure roll of Tri-X?.....or maybe $2 if you bulk load? That's gonna put that same roll, by lp/cd relationship, at $9-$12...or for roll $6-$8....plus processing. And even if you do it yourself........the chemicals are still going to go up. No, strike that........You WILL have to do itself or pay even more at the few labs that still do it.

 

How many people that use B&W film today going to pay those prices? Some will not. This will make the demand even less.........which will drive the prices up even more..........more will stop using..........prices will go up. How much will you pay for a 100 feet of b&w film? Today it's $45 for 100 ft of tri-X at B&H. If you multiply that by 3 or 4 times you have $135 - $180?.......plus processing......and chemicals will go up to.........we haven't even discussed that.

 

and that's just 35mm............will you pay $13 for a roll of 120 Tri-X?....plus processing?

 

...and none of those numbers include taxes and shipping/handling.

 

And I still think that comparing it to LP/CD is not the best econimic model..........I actually suspect 50% added to all my numbers above for film just based on gut instinct.

 

The only arena I see for a possible viable long term future in the artist/hobby B&W film is if someone invents a small sheet film size machine that accurately places the emulsion on the base. This is where B&W film will have a following in the art/hobby world. If the user can take on the whole proces from raw materials and a small economical and easily used machine.......to a useable piece of film, then B&W photography will have a nice future. This means no "roll film" cameras though.........sprocket holes or paper backing adds to much complexity to the machine. Just let it coat a piece of base material........then it could be make cheap enough to warrant me buying it anyhow. But, this does mean the Large Format arena wil be the only survivor. But, it is the only way I can see that there will be some sort of film survivor in the long run.

 

Just my opinion, of course

 

 

[larrydressler]

I have more choices in B&W films today in all formats than I did 20 years ago. Acrillic paint did not get rid of oil paint... Canvas was not replaced by black velvet......... and Day glow colors did not replace water color.... As long as I have a gallon of Rodinal and a freezer my grand children will be shooting B&W film and maybe their children. And I like your 2 cents worth it was almost a Manafesto.

 

Larry

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

I did mean artists/hobbyists by "people." B&W has already been a niche market for many years, and will be hopefully for many more. If all major manufacturers do stop making it, J&C or Freestyle will just buy a coating machine. They don't need hundreds of them like Kodak or Fuji.

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

"Film and digital are at the point now where LPs and CDs were 23 years ago. Film is just starting to disappear from the store shelves..........and you pay what....$3 for a 36 exposure roll of Tri-X?.....or maybe $2 if you bulk load? That's gonna put that same"

 

$2 a roll - I bulk load. Pennies per roll to process, I mix my own chemicals. Paper is a different story - that's where the real expense is.

[thomas_sullivan]

i hope you're right Dan. As I don't plan on selling any of my film only systems, and I do want them to be useful. But, as this post was originally about Terry selling off all his equipment and his wanting to (implicity) buy a film only more expensive system, I do not think that a wise choice. As I said, he should hedge his bet's and buy a system that can handle both film and digital with the simple changing of a camera body or back.

 

As far as J and C.........personally I think they and photographer's formulary should form a single company. I think that combination would have the best chance of surviving film's present and future lower demand. So, you see, I'm not against the idea of film lasting, I just think some major restructuring of the manufacture and distribution system is in need. Perhaps even add KEH to that JCphotographerformulary company at a later date...........to keep the used equipment market in their control also. They all have to start thinking mergers to form a company that can have some diversity. film is no good without the cameras or chemicals. Those three companies are by far the best choices outside of the Kodaks and Fujis to secure film's future. They should get together. Just a thought.

[reuben_c]

FUD (with rebuttal content interspersed):

 

<blockquote><hr>

Film HAS to be made in certain volumes or it's not even worth cranking up the production line. When demand does not equal that amount of production, manufactureres will stop. <A href="http://www.bjp-online.com/public/showPage.html?page=345100">British Journal of Photography</A><hr>

<p>

Excerpts from the linked article:

<blockquote><hr><i>

However, it's an argument built on the fallacy that film is simple. It is not simple. It may be simple to use, but the product itself is extraordinarily complex, its manufacture monumentally difficult and problematic. It involves dozens of processes that have to be monitored to extremely close tolerances, it requires very costly machinery, sophisticated chemical engineering, procurement and storage of a huge range of raw materials, not to mention strict environmental control of toxic processes.</i>

<hr></blockquote>

 

Oh, please. Film can be manufactured using 19th century technology. My proof of this assertion? It <i>was</I> made using 19th century technology -- on a scale that was miniscule compared to even todays scaled-back scale. And, while a lot of it was of lousy technical quality, there was plenty that was of <i>excellent</I> technical quality, proving that excellent film could indeed be manufactured -- on a relatively small scale -- using the technology available in the latter part of the 1800s.

<p>

The same cannot be said for digital photography.

<p>

Furthermore, all the nasty stuff imputed to the manufacture of film <i>also</i> applies to <i>digital</I> manufacture -- in spades. It's far more complex, far more demanding, and, far more environmentally unfriendly. And, finally, it's <i>far</I> more subject to economies of scale. As evidence, try checking out some electronics hobbyist fora, where people are driven to distraction in their efforts to locate and obtain "NLA" components -- and we're talking about <i>simple</I> components, such as transistors. When a semiconductor device goes out of production, that's all, folks. The <i>only</I> source (in lieu of "compatible" substitutes, which are often themselves NLA) are the occasional parts bin that an old-timer will discover in his heap.

<p>

If you think it's tough to restart manufacture of Panatomic X, try seeing what it'd take to start anew with the manufacture of PNP germanium power transistors.

<p>

The implication for <i>specialized</I> components used in digital camera production are even more dire. Apart from the frequent lack of any second-sourcing, there's the fact that when they're out of production, they are out of production for keeps.

 

 

<blockquote><hr><i>

The complexity of makingfilm means it can never be scaled down to a cottage industry.</i>

<hr></blockquote>

 

Nonsense, as proven by history.

 

 

<blockquote><hr><i>

Back in 1980, the price of silver had risen from about $5 per ounce to an eye-watering $21 in the space of two years, but film prices didn't go up.</i>

<hr></blockquote>

 

It actually approached $55 per Troy Oz. (a bit heavier than a "regular" ounce) during the heyday of the Hunt Brothers -- but, the cost of silver -- now, as then -- represents a miniscule percentage of the price of film. There are only a few cents worth of silver in a roll of film. Really.

 

 

<blockquote><hr><i>

Consider also that there are many other camera manufacturers who also see a big future in the Asian tiger economies. These companies don't make film and many no longer make film cameras, so it's in their interest to digitise these huge markets.</i>

<hr></blockquote>

 

Are we talking about film manufacture or (new) <i>camera</I> MARKETS? One of these things is not like the other.

<p>

Unlike digital cameras, traditional equipment does not have an inherent obsolescence-factor built in. I sometimes use equipment made back in the 1930s -- with excellent results. And I'm by no means pushing the envelope. There are plenty of others using even older equipment, again, with excellent results. Sales hype aside, one does <i>not</I> need to "keep on buyin'" hardware in order to produce decent results using traditional equipment.

<p>

This cannot really be said for digital equipment. Plus, repairs and maintenance are often (if not generally) prohibitively expensive, rendering the "repair or replace" question moot. When a part or two cost as much or more than the value of the entire camera (even before labor costs are included), then the camera is not going to be repaired.

<p>

This can be viewed as "progress", or, it can be viewed from other perspectives. Regardless, it's of no merit insofar as the question of film manufacture is concerned, the point being that film cameras do <i>not</I> generally become unusable, unrepairable junk, and therefore, even if no manufacturer were to build any more film cameras from this point forth, there would remain countless millions of usable film cameras availavble, needing only a diet of film.

 

 

<blockquote><hr><i>

How ironic, that when it's all over, it will be because film is so complex.

<p>

The simplicity, so often put forward as film's greatest strength, is just an enduring myth.</i>

<hr></blockquote>

 

High-sounding twaddle.

</blockquote>

<hr></blockquote>

 

This article seems to be written from a certain perspective, and it seems to me, with a certain agenda. It does <I>not</I> strike me as unbiased, let alone accurate.

<p>

Film is far from dead, and those intent on convincing us that it is, seem to fall into two main camps -- those manufacturers who have made the decision to "go digital" and cut their ties to traditional photography, and those <i>users</I> who are fixated on being "with it".

<p>

For the rest of us old farts, the future looks pretty decent, IMO, Kodachrome notwithstanding (and even with that, I suspect there may be a surprise or two in store for us -- of the positive variety (and this time, <i>no</I> pun intended!)

[thomas_sullivan]

Reuben........first, I do not want the demise of film......reread my comments. Second, I already indicated I thought that Large Format film could be done in small quantities.......although I said that a hobbiest could do it at home, it follows that a company could also do it and make a profit. It is also the film you mention done in the 1800's in cottage industry levels........sheet film. Roll film did not come out until the early 1900s

 

It is in the specialized arena of roll film, with it's special needs of sprocket holes or paper backing, that requires specialized machinery. It is in roll film that one must make a specific amount of film to make a profit. This is the area of film that I believe will eventually cease to exist in the future. Sheet film could, and probably will, continue for a very long time after that.

[larrydressler]

I save my backing paper if things ever get that bad...

 

Larry