Film gone by the end of the decade?

[James G. Dainis]

Photography's gone downhill ever since Mathew Brady died anyway.

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>Don't forget there are hundreds of millions of analog cameras in the world</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are probably hundreds of millions of cassette tape players in the world too, but have you tried to find a recent release on cassette? And I won't even mention 8-track (opps, I just did). BTW I know where a good fraction of those analog cameras are. They're in large cardboard boxes at my local fleamarket selling for $1 each.</p>

<p>And film sales are going up?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Struggling Eastman Kodak saw film sales tumble in 2Q, meaning it has to step up digital camera and consumer printer sales ASAP to counter the disappearing legacy business"<br>

Source: Wall St Journal, July 2010. <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010/07/30/high-stakes-for-eastman-kodak/">http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2010/07/30/high-stakes-for-eastman-kodak/</a> </p>

</blockquote>

[DB_Gallery]

Same questions, same people, same banter, same result, a lot of talk on the internet taking time away from making

images on any visual medium. Upload of record snow story to Polaris done, time to go shoot some Tri-X for my new

book project...

[tom_cheshire]

<p>I heard a report digital camera sales had declined for the first time last quarter but film sales had actually edged up by quite a bit. Sure film camera sales are down. That is because few firms are making them anymore. You can't sell a product if you don't make it..</p>

[rossb]

<p> I think mostly film is already gone. Rarely do I see anyone carrying a film rig around. Once in a while at Point Lobos I see a large format rig but not that often anymore. </p>

[MathewDH]

<p>I found the article poorly researched and written from a fatalistic point of view. Charts and statistics can be deceptive and thus it is in this article too.</p>

<p>Kodak has stated that black and white film sales are increasing. Film use in schools that still teach it with chemicals and paper printing are finding the students grew up with digital and it is old hat to them. Film photography is new to them hence their interest in it. There are companies or individuals making the older "obsolete" film sizes available and so it is possible to use almost any film camera. Yes, even the 101 and 103 films for the early Kodak box cameras are around. Though I admit, these films only have six shots per roll and cost almost $38 each. However the film size of 101 is 3.5" x 3.5". 127 film is around in color and BW. 120 can be respooled onto 620 spools.</p>

<p>The real demise for film will happen if governments ban the chemicals to keep them out of the environment. Or the costs of chemical disposal get to high to make the business viable. Then, only the artists will explore the medium or museums demonstrate it to prevent the loss of the knowledge.</p>

<p>I am having three Rolleiflex cameras serviced for use. One is my father's 1952 Rollei MX. It is be gone over by Harry Fleenor for me to shoot with it. Along those lines I shipped a Rollei Original and a Deco Rolleicord to Bald Mountain for overhaul, with the intentions of shooting with them once they are back. <strong>It helps that Ilford has brought out a new Silver based printing paper.</strong></p>

<p>Over the last few months I have researched Autochrome and Platinum printing. Platinum is viable now in a new process of using digitally printed negatives but the same method of paper printing. See this article:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.myprintresource.com/article/10221330/california-kiss-goes-platinum-as-historic-photographic-processes-are-revived">http://www.myprintresource.com/article/10221330/california-kiss-goes-platinum-as-historic-photographic-processes-are-revived</a></p>

<p>The research on Autochrome leads me to the conclusion that the format is interesting but probably vastly more work than most people will ever want to do, especially on glass plates. I bought a nice mountan and lake color autochrome to study it. It was the film based stocks that interested me. Yes, they also were additive in that either starch or yeast particles were used as the filters or recording medium, both color and black and white. However, the plastic films did not have the black coating that filled the space between the grains like on the earlier glass plates. I have some unused color and BW rolls of these films but their manufacture ceased around the late 1950's. There is one problem I ran into. Glass autochromes are common but I would like to see prints that were made from the film based versions and I do not know where to find them except by going to the Lumiere Museum. So, I found the Autochrome approach a dead avenue of pursuit. But the question remains as what was the image quality from the plastic film based stocks, and how large of prints could be gotton from them?</p>

<p>However, this also lead me to research the possiblility of reproducing the effect digitally. I did find one article but the approach was heavy handed. For while it dealt with adding noise to simulate the grainy appearance of Autochromes and lowering the saturation. I suspect the color was actually brilliant under the right conditions of capture but a lot of them have faded over time due to light exposure. The article failed to deal with the color dyes used in the plates, nor the blur of the glass plate images. Were the plastic film roll versions of better sharpness, and brighter colors? I felt a simple automation with Photoshop would be to: alter the RGB values to reproduce the dye color values and add a small amount of bluring to reduce the sharpness.</p>

<p>The next research was into digitally printing images on glass, rather than exposing and developing glass plates. This includes both clear glass and the old Opalitypes on white glass. While it is possible, at this point in time it does not have an archival quality that professional photographers would accept. The chemical based dyes fade quickly from light exposure, within 2 to 5 years. And I have not had the time to look deeper into the possibilities of pigment based dyes. What I have read shows most of it is only cmyk printing. You are not going to be able to do quality archival glass plates, both color or BW with an expensive $2000+ Epson printer. But times change and the printing industry may make it a reality. I have some glass printing trade industy articles to read. So answers may yet come to my eyes.</p>

<p>And finally, I have another idea to explore because it is a real possibility and can be achieved. It is the cost that scares me.</p>

<p>CHEERS...Mathew</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Same questions, same people, same banter, same result, a lot of talk on the internet taking time away from making images on any visual medium</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you actually looked, many of the "same people" are contributing on other forms, helping people with problems, writing on technique, talking about photography rather than just showing up on threads like this one to snipe.</p>

[randrew1]

<p>It is great to see a national news article covering home town news. Some of my former Kodak colleagues are contributing to the Image City Photo Gallery. If you are ever in Rochester, first you need to visit the George Eastman House and then walk down University avenue a few blocks to the Image City Gallery. Scott's Photo is one of the true photo shops in town. It is a short walk from my house. I used to visit more, but in the digital world, I don't need to very often.<br /><br />As for the main thesis of the article, I think they are partly right. I think color film may be gone in 10 years. A lot depends on how quickly the motion picture industry switches to digital. The transition is in progress, but there is some question of how long it will take. Once the motion picture industry has converted to digital origination and digital projection, I expect film production at Kodak to cease. Then Fuji will finally achieve their long sought goal of becoming the largest film manufacturer in the world. I expect the years of their reign will be counted on the fingers of one hand. </p>

<p>The last man standing will probably be Ilford. They have facilities that are appropriately sized for the B&W market. They have lost some customers to digital, but they will start picking up dedicated film users when color film is no longer available. My guess is that B&W film will last until 2030 or longer.</p>

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>I heard a report digital camera sales had declined for the first time last quarter but film sales had actually edged up by quite a bit</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Where did you hear that? Any references?</p>

<p>Of course if you sold 1 roll of film last year and 2 rolls this year, that's a 100% increase in sales, and if you sold 1,000,000 digital cameras last year and 999,999 this year, sales have declined. The actual numbers tell the story.</p>

<p>I'd take reports from Kodak with a gain of salt. If you asked the White Star Line about the Titanic they'd have clamied that beyond a shadow of a doubt it was absolutely unsinkable. I personally worked for a company and heard the chairman of the board describe increasing sales and a bright future about 6 months before the stock tanked. Any company making any product will put the most positive possible spin on things, right up to the moment when it all goes wrong.</p>

<p>I have little doubt that as long as you process it yourself, someone, somewhere will be making some sort of 35mm B&W film well into the next decade. Ditto for large format sheet film. Color film is in a lot more trouble.</p>

<p>I'll believe that film is coming back when Canon and Nikon release new consumer film scanners!</p>

 

[spanky]

<p>Part of the problem is that many people think film is already dead. Not a day goes by where I'm out shooting that someone comes up to me and asks if film is still being made. With that kind of ignorance is there any surprise that film sales have been falling?</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Mathew Hargreaves - Kodak has stated that black and white film sales are increasing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is indeed possible. But that begs two questions. First, is that Kodak's B&W sales, or the whole industry's?</p>

<p>And second, do the increases in B&W come anywhere near close to offsetting the decreases in color? If not, don't expect to see Kodak in the game for any length of time. Small factories, employing dozens of people, that's the future of film.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>jens g.r. benthien - What about sales of film? It's better than 2 years ago!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not according to any report that I've read.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tom Cheshire - I heard a report digital camera sales had declined for the first time last quarter but film sales had actually edged up by quite a bit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>CIPA isn't showing that decline. And where are you getting that "film sales had actually edged up by quite a bit" from. This discussion was started by someone who posted a link to his source that shows a continual falling off.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tim Lookingbill - How come Hollywood is never mentioned in these "demise of film" discussions?<br /><br />Hollywood uses a ton of film. I keep seeing Panavision camera's and Kodak film still being listed in the credits of current movies.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Never mentioned? I've mentioned Hollywood before in these discussions, and even provided links to sources of the percentages of theaters running film and digital distribution. They're already at about 30% in conversion of the world's theaters, and it's more than doubling each year. Film will be dead as a distribution medium in 3 years. The last two movies I saw on film projection, I was amazed at how much the film "experience" (jitter, dirt, jitter, scratches, and did I mention "jitter"?) detracted from my enjoyment of the film.</p>

<p>I predict we're going to start seeing incidents where shooting stock availability interrupts major movie production that will bring a lightning like conversion of the industry to digital, within 5 years.</p>

[meissner]

<p>Harry Joseph mentioned "I feel sorry for the people who work at those labs making film."</p>

<p>Agreed, but then world wide it happens over and over again, where times change and people are made redundant. I have been through 4 layoffs, where once prosperous companies have had to reduce the work force (and in fact two of those companies no longer exist).</p>

<p>One of the things I do is something called steampunk (think Victorian times with sort of modern gadgets), and I was going to a Steampunk event at the Charles River Museum with my E-P2 inside of a Kodak Pony Premo 5x7 body. Before I got to the event, I was talking with a woman who had worked for Polaroid for many years, and had gotten some long term injuries from all of the chemicals that they used, and when Polaroid declared bankruptcy a few years ago, it left her high and dry without any medical insurance.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>but what can you do but adapt with the changing world.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ignore it and do what you want to do.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"The last two movies I saw on film projection, I was amazed at how much the film "experience" (jitter, dirt, jitter, scratches, and did I mention "jitter"?) detracted from my enjoyment of the film."<br />================================================================<br />Funny I never experienced those things when I go see a movie, maybe one of those old Charlie Chaplin movies.<br>

I don't think it has so much to do with quality than with convenience.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>This reminds me a little bit of what is going on in the Computer(IT) industry. I have been in the IT industry for close to 25 years and I can tell you that the wars going on over there concerning new technology, were even more vicious than the Film vs Digital wars in the photography industry. Working in that industry has given me another perspective about rapid technological changes and their effects.<br /><br />Change is good especially if it benefits the majority of the population, but there are always consequences when something changes whether good or bad.<br /><br />Back in the 1980s there were no such thing as PC's or Servers. At least they were not used very much in a production environment. There was the Mainframe computer a huge machine about the size of a small room and their little brother the Midframe or Mini computer. Companies use these machine to fulfill their data processing needs. Programmers use to acces the Mainframe through "Dumb"(non-processing) terminals to do their work. The bad thing about these machines is that they were very costly and took up allot of room which required powerful air conditioners to cool them down. Another thing and this is major is that maintenance fees for MF computers ranged in the millions of dollars per year.<br /><br />During the late 1980's and early 1990's PC(personal computers) began appearing in Corporate offices. Programmers could now acces the Mainframe or Mini computer via an emulator card on the Personal Computer as well as perform minor task such as word processing, email, and spread sheets right form their desks.<br /><br />Around that time memory began expanding, simpler to make as the Analog to Digital revolution was in full swing. Mainframe and Mini computers became smaller and the PC became more powerful. Until that time PC computers could not perform Multi-Tasking(perform more than one task at a time) so they were relegated to simple tasks, but once Multi-Tasking became available on PC's, this changed everything.<br /><br />Programmers could now perform the same tasks that were once done on the huge, high-maintenance and expensive MF computer right at their own desk. This change brought in the proliferation of new computer languages and Data Bases which were once dominated by IBM. This change was also a big boost to employers who were tying to keep the cost down of their operations.<br /><br />So far so good. Around this time the Internet(World Wide Web) was in its infancy. The proliferation of new PC based languages and Data bases soon began cutting into the older skilled work force, which would lead to massive lay-offs of programmers who had been trained in those skills. It was a sink, or swim situation for programmers to either adapt, or fall by the wayside. Unfortunately, schools at the time and as usuall were way behind what was going on in the industry, so finding workers who had those newer skills became a challenge for employers.<br /><br />There were many predictions that the Mainframe computer was finally on its way out, replaced by the more efficient and less costly PC's and Server combination. Many employers who were trying to keep up with their counterparts and with the technology began off loading their older work force replacing them with Consultants who were often sent their by the manufacturer, of the new technology usually charging humonguos fees and keeping them there until they could re-train their existing workforce. Instead of saving money many employers found that they were actually losing money and productivity, because of all the problems in implementing these newer technologies.<br /><br />This was a tumultous time for the industry as new computer languages and data bases came and went. Employers who invested tons of dollars in some new technology were surprised that after a few years the product was no longer supported by the vendor. Only a few software vendor companies remained standing during that time. In the mean time the older more stable technology was was still running as usual , only it had lost a big part of its market share.<br /><br />Server technologies and client-server programming however, became the back-bone of the Internet(World Wide Web) and soon many companies would have the option to do away with a computer all together. Think about it, no maintenace fees, and no work force to maintain them ! Unfortunately, with the advent of the Internet also came the problem of security, so security experts needed to be hired to keep the hackers away. Nevertheless the Internet was the way to go and many companies began gearing their operations in that direction.<br /><br />With that also came the phenomena called "Outsourcing". The internet allowed programmers to access the Servers remotely, so that a programmer could easily work from another location usually a low-wage, or lower-wage location and not have to take up room at a desk in an office. This phenomena was a boon to employers in that they could cut down their work force as well as bring wages and benefits down.<br /><br />These days, just as in the Photo industry a certain computer skill will last you maybe five years, until something else comes up an its time for retraining. Despite predictions of Mainframe computers dying out, many government and very large companies prefer these computers because of their processing capabilities and their secure environment.<br /><br />The two big players in the 'new' IT industry are Microsoft with their ASP.NET platform and SUN with their JAVA platform just like Nikon and Canon. Of course, just like in the photo industry there are others. These days, there are few companies and organizations who still hire workers with the older skill technologies. Most of those jobs have been either outsourced, or eliminated. However these newer technologies are not impervious to Outsourcing, so it's just a matter of time until something new comes up.</p>

<p> </p>

[Alex_Es]

<p>Tim Lookingbill, May 30, 2011; 05:36 p.m. makes a good point. The movie industry is still film-based. Nicely ignored. I made the same point in the Leica and RF forum, where a similar discussion is going on.</p>

<p>I wasn't aware that using film made me a hipster. </p>

[meissner]

<p>I dunno, are the movies still film based? Yes, according to a stat I read recently, only about 30% of the theaters can do digital projection, but I imagine more and more of movie production is done digitally, and then transferred to film stock at the last step. I would suspect once 50% of the theaters can do digital projection, it will be a tipping point, and more and more movies will only be released as digital only releases.</p>

[kevin_omura]

<p>Hmmm I guess I better brave a flight to Tokyo and stock up on Sakura Infra Red 120 film then.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Concerning movies going digital, from Wikipedia:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Regal operates the largest and most geographically diverse theatre circuit in the <br /><br />United States, consisting of 6,775 screens in 548 locations in 39 states and the <br /><br />District of Columbia as of October 23, 2009.<br>

<br /><br />On May 18, 2009, Regal Entertainment Group signed a deal with Sony to install <br /><br />all of its theaters with 4k digital projection over the next three to five years.<br /><br /><br /><br>

AMC Theatres (American Multi-Cinema), officially known as AMC Entertainment, <br /><br />Inc., is the second largest movie theater chain in North America with 5,325 <br /><br />screens<br>

<br /><br />On March 28, 2009, AMC announced that it closed on a $315 million deal with <br /><br />Sony to replace all of its movie projectors with digital cinema projectors starting in <br /><br />the second quarter of 2009 and completing in 2012.</p>

 

</blockquote>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, according to a stat I read recently, only about 30% of the theaters can do digital projection</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Close to 100% of theaters "can do digital projection". It's a question of how many screens in each theater, on the average, are digital. That's your 30%. There are some theaters that have no digital screens, at all. Others that are 100%.</p>

<p>The AMC I normally go to has 20 screens, 16 digital, 4 film (I asked recently). They have all the latest stuff, 2 of the screens are IMAX 3D capable, 6 are Real D 3D. And if you look at the movies that are running on the film screens, it's definitely less than 1/4 of their business. And with things like <a href="http://www.digitalcinemareport.com/node/2411">this new startup</a> providing digital distribution for the small run "art films", I can see those last film projectors going away...</p>

<p>We have a theater in town that has 2 digital screens, 4 film. That's sort of the national average, but it's atypical. The distribution is more "bimodal", either theaters that are mostly digital, or theaters that just have 1 or 2 digital so they can do 3D, or theaters with no digital, at all. We actually have one of those close by. There's a 2 screen theater, the Farmington Civic, that is film on both screens.</p>

<p>So, 30% of screens are digital, but I'm betting a lot more than 30% of revenue stems from those screens.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"However these newer technologies are not impervious to Outsourcing, so it's just a matter of time until something new comes up."</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Professionally speaking, the intelligent embrace of technology is no longer an option. It's a necessity especially for bricks and mortar companies like Kodak because their core products can be substituted by virtual equivalents. </p>

<p>It is often said that this is the century of innovation. I couldn't agree more, and it should be added that this innovative requirement is now extends to the individual or risk professional peril and eventual irrelevance. </p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"It's a necessity especially for bricks and mortar companies like Kodak because their core products can be substituted by virtual equivalents."</p>

<p>Actually Kodak invented the first Digital Camera, so in a way Kodak shot themselves in the foot. Their Image Sensor Division is doing great though.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>It's simple. Film (what's left of it) will become an artists medium, much like oil paints and watercolors.</p>

<p>The mistake many will make is the false correlation that using an artist's medium makes you an artist. It doesn't. Neither does shooting in B&W, using a pinhole camera, shooting polaroids or carrying around a 1950s Kodak Brownie. Often it just makes you a poser. On the other hand shooting digital doesn't make you an artist either, even if you use a cell phone camera.</p>

<p>Cinema is going digital, though there is still a lot of film shot. However that film is invariable scanned and just about all special effects are digitally added. Editing is just about 100% digital. It's s bit like the 1990s when photography was still mostly done on film, but with increasing use of digital scanning and printing. Then when the technology matured, digital capture took over. The same will inevitably happen to cinema. For amateur and independant film makers, digital has the huge advantage of being so much cheaper. No film stock to buy, no processing to pay for, no scanning required.</p>

 

[MathewDH]

<p>Hollywood is using a lot of film still, even with the films being shown digitally. The problem with digital is long term storage. For the digital movies to be archived for a long time the studios are photographing the digital versions onto safety film.</p>

<p>The trend for using less film is there. It is not needed for the normal theater presentation any more. One only has to look at all of the Movie and TV product that is cranked out and publically consumed. The bulk of the viewing population rarely looks back at old shows since there is so much new stuff coming onto the market to keep them entertained. Even if you have the time and interest, how many people can view 70 years of tv output or even the matching movie production? If you still go to movies and not counting the costs to do so, how many movies this year are worth seeing once, or more than once? Darn few. Then how many will you have rewatched over the next decade? I have noticed with my nieces that they rarely rewatch a movie that they have seen. The internet and portable video game devices fill their time until the next new movie appears.</p>

<p>Me? I just want to finish my decade long history book, and get more into photography.</p>

<p>CHEERS...Mathew</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"However that film is invariable scanned and just about all special effects are digitally added. Editing is just about 100% digital."<br />=====================================================<br />The movie Jason and the Argonauts(circa 1963) had some incredible special effects all made on film. Layers in Photoshop was derived from the old Disney movies.<br>

Me I'm having fun with my film and digital cameras. B&H has about every film you can ask for except maybe Kodachrome. Not sure how long this is going to last, but as long as it does, I'm going to keep having fun.</p>