Slide Film - Two Questions

[baisao]

<p>When I shoot color I prefer to use slide film, specifically Velvia 100F. With the recent announcement from FujiFilm that they are discontinuing Velvia 100F (and addition to Neopan 400) what are other options for good slide film?</p>

<p>I know that Ilford has made a commitment to make B&W films, pivoting their position to sell it as a niche item if necessary. No company has made a commitment to continue making slide film. My second question is, what will become of slide film? </p>

<p>(I am trying Provia 100F, but it is just a matter of time before FujiFilm cans it too.)</p>

[chrisnielsen]

If you like Velvia why not try Velvia 50?

[baisao]

<p>Chris, I have thought of that. I just happened to have Provia on hand. That may be my refugee film.</p>

<p>Any opinion on what the next 10 years has in store for color reversal? No one is standing up for it.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>What about Velvia 50? Or Kodak Ektachrome E100VS or FujifilmProvia 100F (why do you think that will be canned?) or Rollei Crossbird color slide films?</p>

<p>Color negative films in production appear to be Fujicolor Pro 400, Fujicolor Superia 200, Rollei Redbird, Kodak Color Pro 200, Ektar 100, Kodak Max 400 and also Portra 800.</p>

<p>Black and white films are even more plentiful in number and type.</p>

<p>There seems to be a lot of talk lately on Photo.Net about the dire availability of films and photographic papers. I don't see any panic just yet, and don't expect it.</p>

[baisao]

<p>Arthur, that's good to know. We spend a lot of time finding films that we like and it is a disappointment when they are discontinued. <br>

<br>

My concern for color reversal hinges on the uncertainty surrounding Kodak and what I sense from FujiFilm is that they are on a steady march towards discontinuation rather than reformulation. As for Rollie Redbird, I am unfamiliar with it or the company (beyond TLRs).</p>

<p>I am not trying to say the sky is falling, I am looking for an outlook and options- which you have provided. Thank you!</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>All Ektachrome is out of production. The price of E-6 processing is zooming, and the number of providers dropping fast. Hard to make money selling slide film anymore, the volumes are tiny. Velvia 50 will probably be the last to go, lots of folks like its unusual color palette. The end of slide film is just a matter of time, nothing will reverse the market realities of slide film.<br>

Also, unlike color negative film, there's no product synergy between slide film and Kodak's primary film product -- movie film.<br>

I'd suggest following Kodak's suggestion -- learn to love Ektar 100. They knew what was going to happen when they decided to make Ektar 100 a C-41 film.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>As for Ilford, they have the know-how to make color film. I think they are even providing some technology and materials to Impossible Project.<br>

But Ilford doesn't have a coating machine that can coat the huge number of coats of emulsion that Kodak lays down in one pass. They would have to run color film through their coating line two or three times, making it very expensive to make. They might have to charge $20 a roll for color film -- and that probably wouldn't fly.</p>

[baisao]

<p>Thanks, John. I've tried Ektar 100 and it just wasn't that great IMO. </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>You are a bit stuck: many people like Provia. I never cared for it much, but I think that's the best if you don't really want the full blown Velvia look. I much preferred Astia 100F/Sensia 100 but thats gone too.</p>

[baisao]

<p>Velvia 50 is taking a dive too:<br>

<a href="http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2193030/fujifilm-discontinues-two-professional-films">http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2193030/fujifilm-discontinues-two-professional-films</a></p>

[chrisnielsen]

<p>Well now's the time to shoot it before they discontinue Velvia 50 too! </p>

[Colin O]

Nobody has suggested Velvia 100. Note that Velvia 100 is a different film to Velvia 100F. The discontinuation of Velvia 100F has been announced; Velvia 100 is continuing (for now).

 

As for Velvia 50, there seems to have been quite a bit of misunderstanding about this. Velvia 50 is only being discontinued in large format. 35mm and medium format Velvia 50 will continue to be available.

 

Provia 400X is my film of choice.

[Mike Howard]

<p>I shoot 30 rolls of E-6 per year, enough for one 5L kit. I buy a lot once a year, to cover me for the next year. I don't know how much slide film you shoot, but you should look into home processing it if you can make the numbers work for you. There is a certain magic about pulling the film from the tank and seeing those brilliant colors. I have about 3000 slide mounts left, once those are gone, my color shooting will go digital, and I will be a sad panda.</p>

[yuri_yupiter3]

<p>RE</p>

<p>"No company has made a commitment to continue making slide film. My second question is, what will become of slide film?"</p>

<p>(1) to still produce a product there has to be a demand. <br>

(2) Film has a shelf life. Film is a perishable product. Any product that degrades in quality over time is considered perishable.<br>

(3) The production line to produce color slide film has a huge capital cost. To maintain an idle line one has labor costs in workers. One often has local taxes on machinery in many usa areas. One has health insurance costs on workers and the light bill to pay too.<br>

(4) As demand drops the overhead cost per unit mushrooms and then the product gets killed. </p>

<p>One question that is not clear at all is will hard core folks really pay 20 to 30 dollars per roll?</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>"<em>No company has made a commitment to continue making slide film. My second question is, what will become of slide film</em>?"</p>

<p>Eventually it will disappear, although some manufacturers might try to sell it to an ever shrinking number of die hards. I am surprised that this did not happen any sooner. You figure at least with negatives you can still get prints from your local drugstore.</p>

<p>Whith slides you have to send them out and most Photo labs have stopped processing it. RA3 the chemicals used to develop prints from slides, disappeared altogeher from the market about 10 years ago. There is still Cibachrome/Ilfochrome but it is not only expensive, it is extemely hard to find, almost like trying to climb the Himalayas.</p>

<p>Digital has matured so much that almost all publications now accept digital files. That leaves only one reason for shooting slides, that is to project them onto a silver screen using one of those carousel projectors. The Digital projectors have improved so much in the last few years that the quality either matches or exceeds that of the old noisy carousel projectors. The price for them is steep though so don't throw out that old projector while you save your pennies for a digital one.</p>

<p> </p>

[jimmy_james8]

<p>"The Digital projectors have improved so much in the last few years that the quality either matches or exceeds that of the old noisy carousel projectors"</p>

<p>In which world?</p>

<p>Digital doesn't look any less clinical, with its dull color pallette and blatantly nasty bokeh, on a big silver screen than it does when viewed on those ubiquitous obesity-promoting computer monitors which now appear to be the photographic medium of choice for internet-addicted digiheads.</p>

<p>The fact is that skillfully printed negative film already looks better than digital--<em>especially</em> B&W--but projected transparencies are in another league altogether, with a sharpness and tonality compared to which the results of even the most advanced full frame sensor digital camera pale, even when projected. This is something more and more people are finding out today, especially the young who started out with digital and have since abandoned it for films like Ektar, TMax, and Velvia.</p>

<p>I agree that digital has many advantages over film, but these lie strictly within the spheres of economy and utility, not aesthetic quality.</p>

<p>Most people do not understand this because the snaps they take with digital look nice and colorful and bright on their HDTV's and their digital prints look so much better than the crap they used to get from CVS, Walmart, and Walgreens. But that is less of an argument against film than it is against the cheap processing many of those who used film in the past had become inured to.</p>

<p>Say what you like, you are all DEAD WRONG. Film will never go way in our lifetime. Color slide film will be around for DECADES yet, perhaps longer. Vinyl survived, Super-8 survived, and I assure you that there are TONS more people committed to color slide film projection today than there ever were to vinyl or small format movie making. <br /> Yes, the options will dwindle and the whole process will become a bit more expensive and inconvenient. So freaking what! You wan't convenience? Go drop a few grand on a Canon 7D and snap away to your heart's content. Ten years hence, how many among the extant heaps of these "convenient" photos will be worth looking at? How many are worth looking at now?</p>

[eddy_d]

<p>I met a woman yesterday that shoots digital. I told her I am film shooter and I shoot slide film and have it cross processed. She said she has a lot of velvia that has been in her fridge for 7 or 8 years. She said she would give it to me. I may take it. Hang on to your analog means. If this country ever comes into a crisis where all cell towers are down, and we cannot communicate with the outside world, because we are all digital. Analog means like film, newspapers, portable radios are going to be the only way to communicate with the outside world..</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>In New Zealand we are already paying $33US for a roll of 35mm slide. <br>

$40NZ = $33US at the mo. </p>

<p>http://wps.net.nz/store/all/film/e6-slide-transparency/691756.fujifilm-velvia-50-iso-135mm-36-exp-e6.html</p>

 

[BernardMiller]

<p>Anthony, much as I'd like to agree with you, I don't think that's gonna happen. Slide film is doomed, and the end, I'm afraid, is not long in coming.<br>

<br />It's true that vinyl has survived--but I'm pretty certain it's much less technologically challenging to produce a vinyl record than it is to make a quality slide film. And they can probably be made cheaply enough in small quantities to make their manufacture viable. Back in the old days, you could actually go in a booth and record your own, unique vinyl record right then and there. Super-8 has survived because there are a few people who still like the look of it, and there are plenty of cameras available--but, more importantly, the film can be made as a side-process, an offshoot of the production of films that are still being manufactured. If they go, it's gonna die, too.</p>

<p>Right now, there is only a single company in the world making slide film. (RIP, E100G and E100VS, two of my very favourite films; the last version of E200 was quite nice, too, and I used to shoot loads of EPP.)</p>

<p>Think about the amount of chemical and materials engineering expertise that is required to make and maintain a colour film production line--who's even *studying* that nowadays to get into the field and keep it going? How much in the way of R&D cash, manpower and facilities would be needed to come up with a new kind of transparency film--and who's going to throw those resources at a problem like that now?</p>

<p>I've not noticed anyone jumping up to buy and resurrect Kodak's (until recently) *existing* excellent line of slide films, for which you wouldn't need to do the above. Why? Because the infrastructure and QC requirements for manufacturing the film would be such a financial drain in comparison to the market for the product. And that's going to continue to shrink as digital cameras get "better" (at least in terms of refining their particular strengths) and processing facilities continue to close or charge higher prices in order to survive. Not only that, the machines used by Fuji and Kodak are so huge and the process so finely tuned, that in order to produce film at a very high quality, they must be used to make huge quantities. In the declining age of film use, who's going to engineer and *invent* a machine that can apply all the different coats to slide film so that small quantities can be made economically to a high quality standard? (Think about it--most of us who would use such a product would demand excellent quality. If a new slide film matched the current quality of the Impossible Project film--which is a bit of a hipster product, with the advantage that you can use really cool cameras to shoot it and you can get the image almost immediately--how many of us would accept that and continue to buy the film?)</p>

<p>I'm sure black and white film *will* be around for ages. The emulsion is so much simpler to make, in comparison to colour film, and it's so much easier to process yourself. (I've done both C-41 and E-6 myself, so I know they're not impossible--but they are more demanding than B&W; and is JOBO even making processors any more?) Plus, there are tons of quality old film cameras lying around that many people still take pleasure in using, and digital is much less successful in rendering the look of black and white darkroom prints than it is in simulating, to a degree, the look of old colour films, if you want that look. So while the price will undoubtedly climb, between that (the ability to charge more for the product), the relative simplicity of manufacture and the ability to make the film in smaller quantities, and a sizable enough market, production of B&W will likely continue to provide someone with a profit.</p>

<p>That being said, even B&W manufacturers aren't immune to some of the factors I mentioned above. Witness Efke's recent demise. When their old film and paper coating machines broke down, they simply decided it wasn't economically feasible to *repair* them, let alone produce new machines. They threw in the towel and went out of business. And I can't see that they were making a huge profit beforehand. While many people loved the look of their films, they had a bit of a reputation for inconsistent quality control and their films being a bit difficult and finicky to handle and process. I'm sure that, like me, many B&W photographers decided they'd rather trust their images to reliably high-quality producers like Ilford and Kodak, which is why the former is still going strong (after its own financial hiccups) and Kodak's B&W line is continuing to show a profit, even now.</p>

[User_4136860]

<p>My understanding is Fuji Velvia 100F is discontinued, but Fuji Velvia 100 is still being manufactured, they are different films, I'm not surprised people are confused.<br /> <a href="http://www.fujifilm.com/products/films/color_reversal_films/">http://www.fujifilm.com/products/films/color_reversal_films/</a></p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I would steer clear of Velvia 100 for general use - quite the worst of the Velvia family in my opinion.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I agree that digital has many advantages over film, but these lie strictly within the spheres of economy and utility, not aesthetic quality.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Reading Andrew's diatribe, I have to wonder whether he has actually ever tried digital, because it just does not match my experience at all? He is correct that digital projection is no match for film projection in resolution terms, but this is a "fault" of digital projector resolution not because the digital files are somehow inferior.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> Ten years hence, how many among the extant heaps of these "convenient" photos will be worth looking at? How many are worth looking at now?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, this applies absolutely and equally to film images too. This is a film forum and I like film, but Andrew's rant appears almost unhinged in its intensity.</p>

[philosli]

<p>I shoot both a lot of digital photos and slide films in the past. I use canon gears (a Rebel XSi and old EOS film bodies, two primes and an L zoom.)<br>

<br /> My wife is blind to these digital vs film debates. But she keeps telling me the projected slides look much better than the digital images on computer screens. According to her, the digital images look flat, while the slides, in particular when projected, look more real and 3D.<br>

<br /> My young kids never got excited of the "slide show" on my iMac 27' screen, but they keep asking me to do a real slide show using the old Kodak Carousel I got on ebay for some 40-60 bucks. Maybe there is some magic in the dimmed light and the fan and motor noise of the slide projector.<br>

<br /> Now I only shoot films. I sold my dSLR. I like slide films and use them discreetly, because it's getting ridiculously expensive now. IMHO, economics rule and slides films are very likely doomed.</p>

[BernardMiller]

<p>Yeah, that's the sad thing. Much as I wish that slide film was here to stay--because it's <em>better</em> than digital (although digital has its uses)--economics and convenience dictate that there probably won't be enough critical mass for much longer to make its manufacture and processing feasible.</p>

<p>And we're not the only ones who think that film is better, and are mourning its slow demise. Keanu Reaves, of all people, is also saddened by the passing of film in the movie industry and has helped make a documentary about it. He talks all about it in this link, which makes interesting listening/reading:</p>

<p>http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/actor-keanu-reeves/</p>

 

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>In New Zealand</strong> we are already paying $33US for a roll of 35mm slide.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I found your problem. I've lived on an island before... gouging bastards charged like crazy for everything.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That leaves only one reason for shooting slides, that is to project them onto a silver screen using one of those carousel projectors.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why use a Carousel when you can get a professional Ektapro for $50? Do Carousels have some advantage?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Digital projectors have improved so much in the last few years that <strong>the quality either matches or exceeds that of the old noisy carousel projectors</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I... I... not sure how to respond. When new the Ektapro lenses for my projector cost more than current digital projectors including lens, in some cases almost tens times more. Have there been advances in lens technology I am not aware of?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>My wife is blind to these digital vs film debates. But she keeps telling me the projected slides look much better than the digital images on computer screens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sounds about right. It's not one of those subtle pixel peeping differences. Anybody that looks at the two can tell there is a gulf of difference.</p>

[wblynch]

<p>Well, there are little manufacturers that could make a good go on 1 or 2 million rolls of slide film per year. They just need Kodak and Fujifilm to get out of the way. And that might happen soon enough.</p>

<p>I think AGFA/Gavaert (sp?) are sill making at least one color reversal film. Imagine if they could increase their business by 10x! I will bet they would be delighted.</p>

<p> </p>