Future of B&W Materials

[gene crumpler]

I though this was worth sharing,

 

 

From John Sextons' current newsletter;

 

 

"FILM IS NOT DEAD!!!

KODAK PROFESSIONAL UPDATES BLACK AND WHITE FILMS

 

With the rapid growth in popularity and quality of digital

imaging technology I find a question that frequently comes

up during workshops, lectures, and photographic gatherings

is "How long will film continue to be manufactured?" As

many of you already know, Kodak Professional is in the

midst of updating a number of their most popular black and

white professional films in both roll and sheet film

formats. During the past few months, I have received a

number of questions and comments from photographers about

this updating procedure -- along with interesting bits of

information, some accurate and some fanciful beyond belief.

Here is a sampling of some of the comments: "They're

taking the silver out of the emulsions" (what would they be

replacing it with???); "The new films have developers built

into them" (they don't'); "They're synthetic films" (were

they ever "natural" ???). I wanted to share some facts

about the Kodak updates on the black and white films, as I

best understand them, and as I have learned directly from

Kodak during the past year!

 

Kodak is not changing the emulsions merely for the sake of

change. Rather, they are moving the production of their

most popular black and white films to their latest and most

advanced film emulsion coating facility. I truly believe

this is GOOD NEWS for black and white photographers.

 

This undertaking was a long and costly process. The new

facility necessitated a significant change in the way the

film was actually manufactured. These manufacturing

changes necessitate a small change in the film developing

time. I congratulate Kodak, not only for undertaking the

updating of the films, but also for informing photographers

about the changes.

 

The new films not only have slightly different names and

packaging to help differentiate from their predecessors,

but the sheet films even have new notch codes. That means,

in the dark, you will know if you are handling a piece of

the new film or the older emulsion. My experience in

testing the films is that after a small adjustment in

processing times, the results in terms of sharpness, grain,

speed, development control, and reciprocity departure are

identical. Generally speaking, most photographers will

find that they will need to reduce their developing time by

a small percentage (probably about 10-15 percent). That

being said, not all the film and developer combinations

work the same. Some may find that they do not need to make

a change at all. Some might even find that their

combination and method of working necessitates an increase

in developing time. The bottom line ­- run some tests to

determine what will be the appropriate processing time to

allow you to get the best results with these new emulsions.

 

Potential benefits of the change in manufacture of the

film, according to Bob Shanebrook (a longtime friend and

super knowledgeable person at Kodak Professional), are that

there likely will be less static potential (hooray for less

dust on sheet film!!!), less mottle, and even better batch

to batch consistency. I am thrilled to see Kodak making

this significant investment, and publicly featuring the new

films so prominently, when so many people are saying that

film is nearing the end of its life. I have nothing

against digital imaging, but I do love silver-halide film

and paper.

 

Here is a link to the Kodak Professional web site where you

will find lots of information on the new films, their

characteristics and suggested processing times:

 

http://www.kodak.com/go/bwfilms

 

One word of advice that I mention on workshops and follow

myself...

It is clear to me that nothing has a finite life on this

planet, and the photographic materials we are accustomed to

using today will not be around forever. In all likelihood,

the person or people that will make the decisions as to

whether to discontinue or continue the production of a

particular product will not be intimately familiar with its

actual use, and will primarily be evaluating sales figures.

For that reason, today I buy ONLY the materials I desire

to work with. For years I have not made contact sheets on

resin coated paper because I simply prefer the look, feel,

and handling in the darkroom of fiber based paper. Today I

make a point of making my contact sheets on papers that I

use, enjoy, and want the manufacturer to continue producing

(for me that's Kodak Polymax Fine Art). I suggest you look

at your photographic purchases and make sure that the

materials you are buying are those that you feel are

important for your own work, rather than those that allow

convenience or a slight cost savings. The more we buy a

product the longer it will be available!"

 

Something to think about!

 

Gene Crumpler

 

 

 

 

[msitaraman]

I'm no expert but reading between the lines of the Kodak Q&A

 

 

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/bw/qAndA.jhtml

 

it appears that either the film base and/or coating technologies have changed, while the emulsion remains the same. This has likely been done to consolidate manufacturing facilities and cut costs.

[chris_waller]

I think b+w materials will be around for ever. When photography first appeared in the 1840s painters seriously believed that the end of painting was approaching. But in fact there are more painters around now than in 1850. Here in the UK there has been a renaissance of interest in monochrome photography. At the media centre where I teach we have waiting lists for photography courses. The generation that grew up on digital technology has experienced the 'alchemy' of photography. The colour 'happy snap' market may decline, but even that is, I think, more resilient than most people imagine. I expect that well into the future we will be sloshing around in trays of dev much as painters continue to daub paint on canvas.

[m0002a]

Without getting into the details of what John Sexton said, he is paid by Kodak to endorse their products.

[gene crumpler]

Yes, John is associated with Kodak. If you have been to his home and studio, you realize that they don't pay him a lot! That does not detract from the fact that he is one of the foremost fine arts photograpers living today. You ought to see his prints up close and personal.

 

The point that I though was significant, is that supply and demand will ultimately decide the fate of our B&W materials. Do you want FB papers or RC in the future? Look at Kodak IR film in 4x5- I purchased a sheet film camera and holders specifically to shoot the film and the next week, Kodak discontinued it.The old press camera makes a nice collectable (dust catcher). I guess that Verchrome pan suffered the same fate, although I never used it myself. YMMV

[m0002a]

One of the problems with Kodak is that they are a very large company and B&W (not including x-rays) is a very small part of the their revenues. They have had serious financial problems lately, and have reduced their workforce by more than 1/3 in the last five years. The level of demand required to sustain a product at Kodak is much greater than required at a niche supplier like Ilford, Oriental, Bergger, etc. So I don't consider it a real problem if Kodak gets out of the B&W business, especially if it makes the other companies stronger.

[ken_miller4]

Thanks for the note Gene. Very informative. Sexton was one of the first fine-art photographers to use TMAX, so I'm sure he knows what he's talking about.

 

Regarding the newsletter, how did you subscribe? I'm willing to bet that only workshop attendee's are on the list.

 

Can you confirm?

 

This may not be an issue for me, since I'm hoping John is going to do a spring Yosemite workshop again. If so, I'm there!

 

Cheers!

 

-klm.

[roger_urban3]

Nice informative contribution, Gene.

 

Hope Technical Pan is around forever.

 

Hope 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 B&W sheet film is also.

[jim_kish]

For Ken Miller,

 

If you ask at info@johnsexton.com, I am sure they will put you on the newsletter list.

[james___]

I personally am glad Mark has done so much research that he comes to us with such a positive attitude. I'm sure he knows as much about Kodak as John sexton. Thanks.

[m0002a]

I am not at all pessimistic about the availability of quality B&W materials. I think that Kodak will cut back on some obscure products, but will continue to produce the more popular ones. But even if Kodak wanted out of the B&W business, someone else would buy the B&W business from Kodak.

 

In addition, there are several other manufacturers who supply high quality B&W products such as Ilford, Oriental, Bergger, etc. In my opinion, they deserve more support than Kodak. I don't know why people get so upset about me revealing that John Sexton is paid to endorse Kodak products. It's the truth.

[gene crumpler]

I'd settle for Delta 100 in 220 as the last film manufactured. TP a close 2nd. (I know, I know; Delta 100 doesn't come in 220, but I can dream)

[scott_eaton]

Now this is how a thread on the future of B/W materials should be handled in a proactive and positive manner. Exellent post Gene and superb points you've made.<P><I>I'd settle for Delta 100 in 220 as the last film manufactured</i><P>I agree, and the Ilford/Kodak issue needs some commentary here.<P>One thing that Ilford has done more succesfully over Kodak has been more pragmatic about the future of B/W materials. Unlike Kodak, Ilford isn't so reliant on zillions of 100foot rolls of B/W film to be sold for utilitarian purposes. Ilford primarily caters to the fine art crowd and serious dark-room hobbiest. Those of you that fall into the category likely don't care about what-ever digital camera or process comes out. You use B/W materials and do dark-room work because it meets your artistic goals, or you simply like doing so. It's not a competition sensitive to market shifts. As gene stated "<I>I simply prefer the look, feel, and handling in the darkroom of fiber based paper </i> is what ultimatley counts and what Ilford has typically marketed to. Kodak has figured this out only by being dragged into reality kicking and screaming, and I still don't think they have the full picture. I mean, TMY 400 vs Tri-X pro; come on. What material is likely to just to be grabbed off the shelf because it says "B/W" and what material is used because of it's historic image qualities? Ilford simply doesn't have that dilema, so they don't have such a volatile market base.<P>Twice a year I see hundreds of college kids empty out the shelves at local photo shops of mostly Kodak B/W film for their intro photo classes. Likely most of them will never buy most of those film types again. That's not a way to guage B/W film sales, and yet it often is just like dept stores base their seasons sales on the first week after Christmas.<P>What it comes down is to approach the supply and demand issue of film as an artistic one that is not in any direct competiton with improving technology. Film, B/W or color is not going to compete with the utility of digital capture or incresingly better ink-jet printers. You *will* continue to see B/W film being produced if there is a market base that has clear, artistic goal of using those materials such as what gene stated to clearly and logically. My concern is if falling film sales in more conventional markets has enough momentum to take out many fine art B/W materials on the way down. <P>John Sexton is one of the few B/W artists I actually dig, and listen to when he speaks. His work is amazing as well and has always been a prime inspiration of mine.