Can color film survive the rise of digital projection?

[dave_s]

<p>I think Dave L is right-- color neg film will be available for some time, but the market for film has unusual features. It's like the <a href="http://www.jstor.org/pss/3976">Whitebark Pine and the Clark's Nutcracker</a>.</p>

<p>As film usage shrinks, nearly all the neighbourhood C41 labs have closed, and that creates a positive feedback loop, AKA a vicious circle. Every time a C41 lab closes, a few dozen film shooters say "Screw it." They put their F2s and T90s on the shelf, and buy a digital camera. And when those people give up film, it puts pressure on the labs, so another one closes. There's probably a mathematical model for describing this kind of a market, but positive feedback loops are inherently unstable, and something has to give. We saw this happen with Kodachrome. </p>

<p>Irrespective of the motion picture industry, I bet we'll be able to get C41 neg stock for at least a decade, and something like Tri-X for a long time after that. It's impossible to be certain. All photo.net predictions of the death of film have so far proven incorrect (<em>Cf.</em> Leica Jay, 2004). But it may get expensive and inconvenient before it's actually gone. </p>

[wblynch]

<p>Color film will probably outlast gasoline cars :)</p>

 

[link]

<blockquote>

<p>digital yields the same flat boring look every single time. a lot like those cheap 1980's soap operas did. I hate everything about digital cinema cameras. and all my film professors agree with me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Curtis you sound so bitter and angry! Why are you studying filmmaking? Filmmaking will be an all digital process pretty darn soon. You might think of changing your major. You are way too young to be a luddite.!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>(cough sarcasm cough)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Photography and filmmaking are supposed to have a fun component. I'm afraid you're missing out Curtis.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Digital movies look fake and hurt my eyes. That's one reason I seldom go to the movies anymore.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Film movies have jitter that gives me a headache. I found my movie enjoyment and attendance increased dramatically with the rise of digital projection. This is also the view of the majority: even in this recession, movie attendance and revenues are up.</p>

<p>Film movies present the viewer with a "surface" of dirt, scratches, and film grain. All the action happens behind this surface, you're always aware that you're watching from behind a "dirty window". Digital doesn't put anything between you and the movie. Sorry if that bothers you...</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Dave Luttman - I agree with a lot of what you estimate Joseph.....but color negative film vanishing from the majors in 2 years....not a chance!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How about "the majors" themselves vanishing in 2 years? Kodak cannot sustain 2 more years like this one. I'll get to the 10K in a minute. First, something for "Smooth Carrots"...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Smooth Carrots - That's speculation based on wild imagination. Film sales have actually stabilised recently, the first time they haven't dropped in over a decade.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, they haven't "stabilized". You're not "speculating", you're just plain wrong.<br>

Here's the latest news from Eastman Kodak, according to their <a href="http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/31235/000003123511000085/ek10q1stq2011.htm">10Q (quarterly report)</a> for the first quarter of 2011. Compared to the same period in 2010...</p>

<ul>

<li>Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group sales fell 14.4% from $429M to $367M. They went from making a $22M profit to posting a $15M loss.</li>

<li>Graphic Communication Group (Kodak inkjets) had a sales increase from $601M to $625M, but still managed to post a $71M loss, larger than the same period last year.</li>

<li>Consumer Digital Imaging Group (Digital cameras) had a dramatic drop in sales from $884M to $330M, and went from posting a $401M profit to a $168M loss.</li>

<li>Consolidated losses for all groups $273M, vs. a profit of $245M for the same period last year.</li>

</ul>

 

[steve m smith]

<p>So Kodak's lowest loss was from film. Not quite as good as a profit though.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Marc Rochkind - It will depend mostly on the financial health of Kodak and Fuji.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed it will. That's what prompted me to take a look at Kodak's latest <a href="http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/31235/000003123511000025/ek2010_10k.htm">10K (annual)</a> and <a href="http://edgar.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/31235/000003123511000085/ek10q1stq2011.htm">10Q (quarterly)</a> reports. I wasn't prepared for what I found...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>John Shriver - Kodak has very high capital expenses, and rather ruinously high property taxes in Rochester, New York. The drop in "Eastman Color Print" film sales is hitting them very hard, it's the backbone of their operation (say 70-90% of production). It covers their fixed costs, if that goes away, their business model crumbles.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, no. I always believed something like this, too. But these things haven't been the backbone of Kodak for years. Kodak splits their operation into three segments</p>

<ul>

<li>Film, Photofinishing and Entertainment Group (FPEG). This includes all film products: consumer and professional roll film and paper, cinema shooting and distribution stock, and medical. I'll refer to them as "film".</li>

<li>Graphic Communications Group (GCG), which makes inkjet printers, pressed, and prepress equipment. I'll refer to them as "ink". Little desktop ink, or room filling ink.</li>

<li>Consumer Digital Imaging Group (CDIG), which makes Kodak digital cameras. I'll refer to them as "digital".</li>

</ul>

<p>According to Kodak's summary and to the numbers in the reports, that digital camera group has been 60-70% of Kodak for the last 3 years. All film (still, movie, and medical) together has held pretty constant at 22% of Kodak. Ink and digital account for the other 78%.</p>

<p><strong>OK, here's the scary part. Kodak is most definitely shutting down film...</strong></p>

<p>Among the other things that the report mentions, there's a summary of R&D expenditures on page 8.</p>

 

<table border="2">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>Year</td>

<td>2008</td>

<td>2009</td>

<td>2010</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Film</td>

<td>49</td>

<td>33</td>

<td>19</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Ink</td>

<td>221</td>

<td>171</td>

<td>152</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Cameras</td>

<td>205</td>

<td>146</td>

<td>148</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>Now, 6% of sales is generally considered normal for healthy companies in the tech industries. If you look at R&D as a percentage of each unit's sales, you'll see that ink and cameras pretty much "track", and that film doesn't.</p>

<table border="2">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>Year</td>

<td>2008</td>

<td>2009</td>

<td>2010</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Film</td>

<td>1.64%</td>

<td>1.46%</td>

<td>1.08%</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Ink</td>

<td>6.63%</td>

<td>6.27%</td>

<td>5.63%</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>Cameras</td>

<td>6.64%</td>

<td>5.57%</td>

<td>5.54%</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>1-2% reinvestment is not sustainable. <strong>Let me emphasize that. 1-2% reinvestment is not sustainable in any industry: from agriculture, to transportation, to paper mills, to clothing.</strong> Sometime before 2008, Kodak determined that film was, as far as a sustainable business segment of Kodak, dead. They essentially shut down film R&D.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Cool, I've got Smiths. So many of them. Call me Neo!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Steve Smith - So Kodak's lowest loss was from film. Not quite as good as a profit though.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, but it makes a lot more sense when you look at it like this. Kodak and Fuji both have falling sales and posted losses in their film groups. But Kodak also managed to screw up in digital cameras, a segment where other companies, including the green box guys, are posting profits and sales gains. Looking at both the sales and profit numbers from 2008-2010 and the horrifying first quarter of 2011, Kodak is in really bad shape. And looking at R&D expenditures, they're still heroically trying to maintain digital cameras and their ink printing businesses at about the same levels as any normal, healthy company, although they have cut reinvestment in both 2010 and 2009. But they have virtually shut down their film operation. A fertilizer company wouldn't run those 1-2% numbers, let alone Eastman Frakking Kodak.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>David Smith - If you want to know about 35mm film viability just look at the prices of the devices that use them. Cameras that are 20 to 50 years old are commanding anywhere from healthy to ridiculous prices on auction sites and craiglist.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One could say the same about butter churns and spinning wheels. The collectible market is tremendous for things that look good sitting on a shelf, unused. Sort of like a Leica film body. The majority of collectors will not mount a lens, because scuffing the mounts diminishes the collectible value. I know gun collectors who are the same way.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>They cant possibly be unaware of the recent continued interest in film and the old cameras that use them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You mean the "recent continued interest in film" that I documented above? Like Kodak essentially shutting down their R&D, a few years ago? Or sales that fall every year?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can you imagine if Canon would bring out a modern version for the F-1? A simple metal bodied 35mm camera with modern matrix metering then introduce a new line of autofocus lenses with aperture rings like back in the day.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This was covered, quite thoroughly, in other threads. Aperture rings on lenses are <strong>injurious </strong>to photographers. The camera companies have access to good research; they've known this for decades. Why do you think Canon and Minolta scrapped their existing systems and went to new systems without aperture rings back in the mid 80s? And why Nikon and Pentax are catching up. When Blad and Leica's new owners (Blad's last new owners, not the new "new" owners) launched new product lines, like the H1 and S2, respectively, the aperture rings went away. <strong>They are not coming back.</strong> This is a "good thing".</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>OK, a bit wider range. In the 2004 and 2005 annual reports, Eastman Kodak stated teh numbers for film and digital together, as one group, "D&FIS". The other two groups were "health", which is now gone, and GCG, the same old "ink". For the 2006 annual report, they reorganized their groups, split the film and digital numbers, and restated 2004 and 2005, so this is based on the 2006, 2008, and 20 10-K reports. So, 2006 was when Kodak admitted to the world (or at least the parts of the world capable of understanding their SEC filings) that they are phasing out the film business, totally.</p>

 

<table border="2">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>R&D</td>

<td>2004</td>

<td>2005</td>

<td>2006</td>

<td>2007</td>

<td>2008</td>

<td>2009</td>

<td>2010</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>film</td>

<td>155</td>

<td>89</td>

<td>76</td>

<td>60</td>

<td>49</td>

<td>33</td>

<td>19</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>ink</td>

<td>145</td>

<td>278</td>

<td>231</td>

<td>214</td>

<td>221</td>

<td>171</td>

<td>151</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>cameras</td>

<td>164</td>

<td>179</td>

<td>290</td>

<td>250</td>

<td>205</td>

<td>146</td>

<td>148</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>And here is the R&D reinvestment in each of the three reporting groups of Kodak.</p>

 

<table border="2">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td>R&D</td>

<td>2004</td>

<td>2005</td>

<td>2006</td>

<td>2007</td>

<td>2008</td>

<td>2009</td>

<td>2010</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>film</td>

<td>2.20%</td>

<td>1.67%</td>

<td>1.79%</td>

<td>1.65%</td>

<td>1.64%</td>

<td>1.46%</td>

<td>1.08%</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>ink</td>

<td>10.79%</td>

<td>9.30%</td>

<td>7.03%</td>

<td>6.27%</td>

<td>6.63%</td>

<td>6.27%</td>

<td>5.63%</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>cameras</td>

<td>6.93%</td>

<td>5.57%</td>

<td>9.62%</td>

<td>7.70%</td>

<td>6.64%</td>

<td>5.57%</td>

<td>5.40%</td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>Note that even in 2004, when film was still accounting for 65% of Kodak's sales, and digital cameras just 22%, that they effectively yanked the rug out from under film by allocating it 2.20% of its sales for R&D, while giving cameras a healthy 6.93%.</p>

[wblynch]

<p>Joseph, don't worry, your precious digital photography will be around for a long, long time. But it sounds as if you delight in our slow loss of film almost to the point of evangelical obsession.</p>

<p>I still contend that color photographic film will survive beyond Kodak or Fuji.</p>

 

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>But it sounds as if you delight in our slow loss of film almost to the point of evangelical obsession.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have reported facts, calmly, and without any evangelism, either in favor of digital or film. I am well known as an alternative process printer, and work with platinum, gum, bromoil, carbon, cyanotype, and Vandyke printing, often in combination, and have been experimenting with hand coated silver gelatin plates. I do not "delight" in the slow loss or quick loss of anything, aside from the loss of attitudes such as yours, which cannot happen quickly enough.</p>

<p>Not everyone who disagrees with you is either evangelical or obsessed. In fact, judging from your comments about the use of rapid prototyping equipment to construct cameras, I'd say it's quite likely that people who disagree with you are simply better educated, or saner than you, or both.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I still contend that color photographic film will survive beyond Kodak or Fuji.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I did not say that it wouldn't. I stated that "The latest technology, like the new Ektar, will die in about 2 years, with the death of film cinema." Examine your own inability to read what I actually wrote as a symptom of your own possible "evangelical obsession".</p>

[wblynch]

<p>Joseph I doubt they make a hat big enough to fit on your head.</p>

[marc_bergman1]

<blockquote>Joseph I doubt they make a hat big enough to fit on your head.</blockquote>

<p>I have actually seen a picture of Joseph wearing a hat, so it is humanly possible. I can't find a link.</p>

<p>Perhaps the Guinness or the Ripley pages would have it.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Joseph I doubt they make a hat big enough to fit on your head.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bill, you're projecting, again. I'm getting tired of being the scapegoat for all the faults that you see in yourself.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have actually seen a picture of Joseph wearing a hat, so it is humanly possible. I can't find a link.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>LOL, Marc, that picture is everywhere! I use a picture of me in my infamous bush hat with the silver Kokopeli and flute playing angel charms as my avatar on several sites. So, if you've wandered across my posts on any site with avatars (dpReview, PotN, Photomacrography.net) you've seen this shot. (Bill, it's a pinhole shot, which will conflict with your image of me as the enemy of anything "classical", so pretend you don't see it. You appear to be good at that sort of thing).</p><div></div>

[James G. Dainis]

<I>Moderator's note: Now, now, children. Play nice.</i>

[wblynch]

<p>apologies to the board</p>

[jeff_z.]

<p>Perhaps I'm betraying a bias for film, but I think one has to wonder about the true motivations for posts like this, and that of those who would go to the lengths certain folks will...</p>

<p>While I have no expertise in determining the apparent nuances between movies made on film vs. those made digitally, it seems that both have supporters and detractors. I suspect the differences are not important at all if the work is of sufficient quality. This overblown emphasis on subtle differences in appearances (b.s. in my view) seems all too typical of the U.S. these days; we should be focusing much more on the work itself.</p>

<p>Currently, my photographic interests are with 35mm still photography, and as my experience increases, I have been happily surprised with results. And my sense for the last few years is that most of the local people I respect in photography are feeling this way, as well. Most of us shoot film, and very often, scan it for web use, and/or, for print. As long as one has a good scanner and doesn't shoot a huge amount, this hybrid workflow works very well. Even at the few workshops I've attended, the instructors seemed taken with the film results.</p>

<p>Comments about some recent work I did in NYC from a writer/editor at the NY Times, the group I was photographing, and the organizers of the event, provided confirmation to what I was already thinking about modern negative films. And I've always loved tranny films for nature. Of course this workflow doesn't involve constant "keeping up with the Jones" in terms of frequent gear "upgrades" (i.e. buying and attending classes), so it's not good for those with skin in the financial games of camera manufacturing, software, and retail...</p>

<p>Personally, I would not waste time reading a post like this except that I feel compelled to speak up for film because I don't want to see it go away (I think I'll find a new hobby if that's what happens.) Naturally, my fear is that if enough people are swayed by these fairly cleverly designed posts into thinking that film is facing a short life span, they will give up on it; i.e., it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I'd really like to see these strange, basically, "speculation issues about film's decline" go elsewhere, so many of us don't waste further time and energy on them.</p>

<p> </p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>The fact that people differ on this subject doesn't mean one side is actively rooting for the demise of film.</p>

<p>My first color film was Kodachrome II. That is from around the early to mid-sixties. It was a great film. It was soon gone. I have seen so many films and even film formats go by the wayside that I have lost count.</p>

<p>You learn to adapt. I have a nice collection of film SLRs. I plan to shoot a wide variety of B&W films and try various developers. I will take notes and determine my favorite combinations. I haven't done that in such a systematic way since the 1970's. It sounds like fun.</p>

<p>Now what was the question?</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>if enough people are swayed by these fairly cleverly designed posts into thinking that film is facing a short life span,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I see no evidence that anything that anyone has posted is "cleverly designed" to create such an effect. If you have any actual arguments to counter any of the facts presented, I'd love to hear them. Otherwise, your insults are not appreciated.</p>

[jeff_z.]

<p>Hi Marc,<br /> I'd heard about how good Kodachrome II was, though it was a bit before my time. I've been using the same tranny film for about seven years now, Kodak E100g, and appreciate it more each year. Before that, I was using its predecessor, E100S, and/or, E100SW (slightly warmer). I love the E100g, and will attach a few recent flower images for you- sorry about the watermarks. I'd really urge you to try this flavor if you might be looking for a great color transparency film.</p><div></div>

[jeff_z.]

<p>A second flower image...</p><div></div>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>The problem i have with this discussion is that somehow r�� and d spend is being linked to product viability. kodak could sell tri-x and ektar 100 for the next century without one penny further of r and d. </p>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Jeff,</p>

<p>Thanks for posting the images. It looks like E100G has good response even into the violet region. The greens also look natural.</p>

<p>I will have to pick up a several rolls with my next film buy. </p>

[jeff_z.]

<p>Of course you're very welcome, Marc. It's great to get that kind of feedback from experienced people like you and Louis Meluso (on another post). I'd tried to substitute some color negative films for it last year for nature, but they didn't seem to quite measure up (but I absolutely love the Portra's for people, urban settings, and more). I do look forward to experimenting with the new Portra 400 for some wildlife photography, as I'm hearing great things about it, but for the right situations, I really love this 100 speed tranny emulsion.</p>

<p>As you probably know, it might be optimal to use a mild warming filter with the E100g outdoors, and that's what I almost always do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... kodak could sell tri-x and ektar 100 for the next century without one penny further of r and d.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That seems like a pretty cogent point to me also, Dave. Might be nice though, if they could make these already great films even better, though:)!</p>

[tim parkin]

<p>I don't know what people are talking about when they say very few movies are shot on film.. Try the following search in google (basically a search on imdb.com for kodak vision3 2010 in the technical specifications). <br>

http://goo.gl/EsLXj<br>

This lists over 150 films in 2010 - more than in 2009!<br>

Film is a premium product for high quality films and seems a preference for many directors, producers, cinematographers. <br>

By all accounts we shouldn't really be seeing any black and white films or photography produced any more because it's 'irrelevant' and 'out of date', but... <br>

As for business, Kodak will always make more money selling the equipment to a niche company than scrapping it and I would be happy to bet half my salary that I'll be shooting colour film until I'm dead. (hopefully another few decades yet). I'll bet that Kodak will have sold off film production to some form of management buy out funded by a movie industry investment consortium. Fuji have already rationalised their film production lines and so they will be selling two or three lines of E6 and a couple of C41 lines (consumer and pro) although they may have spun the company out to an asian investment consortium who will operate the production out of china.<br>

The chances that both Kodak and Fuji will go "A f*** it!" and destroy there whole production facilities without an attempt to rationalise or divest is very, very slim. <br>

Tim</p>