panmedia

<p>It seems to me the report is talking about the global market. Not just North America or Europe. <br>

"In the United States, there will be no more mainstream 35mm usage from the end of 2013. For Western Europe, this event may happen at the end of 2014, given the large number of countries and the possibility of public support.<br>

The rest of the world will then be under some pressure to follow suit. Because of this, 35mm will see its last mainstream usage by the end of 2015."<br>

Here is the URL for the original article if anyone plans to do further research on this subject:<br>

<a href="http://www.isuppli.com/Media-Research/News/Pages/The-End-of-an-Era-Arrives-as-Digital-Technology-Displaces-35-mm-Film-in-Cinema-Projection.aspx">http://www.isuppli.com/Media-Research/News/Pages/The-End-of-an-Era-Arrives-as-Digital-Technology-Displaces-35-mm-Film-in-Cinema-Projection.aspx</a></p>

<p>A bunch of news caught my attention lately. One is a market research report published in Nov, 2011 about "The End of an Era Arrives as Digital Technology Displaces 35mm Film in Cinema Projection". The projection is, "January 2012 will mark the crossover point when digital technology overtakes 35mm. By the end of 2012, the share of 35mm will decline to 37 percent of global cinema screens, with digital accounting for the remaining 63 percent. This represents a dramatic decline for 35mm, which was used in 68 percent of global cinema screens in 2010. In 2015, 35mm will be used in just 17 percent of global movie screens, relegating it to a niche projection format."<br /> <br /> The second news just come in after the New Year 2012: Kodak lost three board directors recently, or in one week, if not bad enough. Kodak sold its digital sensor business. Kodak just sold its gelatin business. And Kodak is trying to find buyers for its patent portfolio. Kodak does not only offload its traditional production capability, but is also selling out its digital lines and research results.<br>

Those efforts are nothing new. All of those points to the same direction as Polaroid did.</p>

<p>Lee makes three affordable color filters and I wonder if they can be used for re-exposing:</p>

<ul>

<li>3x3" Green #58 Polyester Filter for Tricolor/Color Separation Work</li>

<li>3x3" Red #25 Polyester Filter for Tricolor/Color Separation Work</li>

<li>3x3" Clear Blue #47B Polyester Filter for Tricolor/Color Separation Work</li>

</ul>

I feel that Velvia 100F is closer to Provia 100F than to Velvia 50.

In the place to use Provia 100F, if use Velvia 100F instead, it might give you some more colors.

Or I would rather say that Velvia 100F is a great competitor of Provia 100F.

I use 220 film if it is available for that type of the film. But 220 market is probably less than 10% of 120 market.

I don't think Ilford will offer any 220 film in future. The profitability is the first consideration for Ilford right now.

On PC Quadtone RIP is a standalone program. You cannot access and print with this software through Photoshop.

On Mac, you can access and print with this software through Photoshop.

I was taught to do the presoak too many years ago in my first darkroom class. But I always wonder how long is a appropriate time for the presoak.

Any concensus or suggestion on this?

Best thing to do now is going out and shooting more films.

By the time when films are finally disappeared from the market, if you live up to that day, you can look at your own negative/slide piles and smile -

I shoot all I can shoot and no regret.

"Well Scott, you can't do that or you'd have to change your name to "160 ASA" which doesn't have the same ring to it."

Haha, I agree, I guess at the time to find an ID, there is no Pro 160 available yet. Now someone can register that "160ASA" and sell to Scott to make a few bucks :). But if next time we find that the best thing is Astia 100F or Velvia 100, is it better to get an ID as "100ASA"? :):)

By the way, whatever the shortcoming or incomplete of the test and the analysis, those results and the process are still interesting and worth to try.

Thanks Scott for those comparisons and the results are very interesting. But they do leave some more to be desired.

First the scanner resolution need to be up a little. I have owned a Minolta 2700 DPI scanner, a Minolta 3200DPI scanner, a Polaroid 4000 DPI scanner, and a professional 6000 DPI scanner. The last one show me not only the object details on the film, but also the film details like ugly(or amazing) film grains. It will be helpful to see this comparison in a higher scanner DPI level and in a pre-defined manual scanner setting, like some other already pointed out.

Second it is not very useful to add RG25 in this comparison because of the age of the film, especially if in last 10 years it is in unknown storage condition. A better approach is to test fresh films from known storage conditions. In this case, 160VC, 160NC, NPS 160, NPC 160, Fuji's new 160 films, Konica Pro 160, Agfa XPS 160, plus some 100 speed films like Reala and UC100, etc., are all readily available to be tested and compared.

I believe I have those ASA 25 films in storage like Agfa APX 25, Tech Pan 25, Kodachrome 25, Royal Gold 25, Ektar 25, etc. One day if I have some disposable time I will run a test just for those ASA 25 films.

But what is the purpose? Sometimes I realize we never need a finer film grain for a masterpiece. So why we are bother about all those issues!

You can get many things in Shanghai - Jobo's, b&w chemicals, commercial c-41 chemicals, enlargers, b&w films and papers, etc.

The choices are limited though. But if you want to you can import any photographic equipment as you wish from Japan, USA, Germany to set up your own darkroom.

Ilford films and papers are very popular in Shanghai's more professional photo stores. I am not sure about Ilford chemicals. Fuji and Kodak consumer films are everywhere. Velvia, Provia (RDP III) are also available in better photo stores.

This is posted in a discussion forum so a little discussion is expected. The ongoing prices on that famous auction site are depress:

11x14 Saunders easels $45 sold. But 16x20 size worth more than $150 there. 20x24 much higher. Big is better - price wise on easels.

Stainless steel reels and tanks are $10-20 for a set or a bunch.

Alden-74 bulk loader usually is around $10. As low as $6.50. $15 with one roll of film inside and ready to roll.

50mm Schneider Componon-S enlarging lens $40 sold there. Under 150mm nothing is expensive. Above 150mm the price goes much higher.

Yes that auction site is a little tough on the price :). A little risky unless it is from a big seller.

Jay Johnson, your points are well taken. I will try to see if Diafine is that bad comparing with other film developers. I don't have a fixed mindset on the use of film developer or other photographic materials - as long as it generates better negatives, and has lesser impact to the environment, that will be my cup of tea.

By the way I would like to see if anyone can list some environment friendly darkroom chemicals.

Jay,

Thanks for the recommendation of PC-TEA. I will definitely give it a try. The reason I don't want to pour used Diafine into septic tank because I am not sure what is inside of it. Its formula is not published, isn't it? If I can figure out what it contains it will be better. Homes with septic tank usually use well water too. Anything into the septic tank, finally, after many years, will gradually get into the ground water, more or less. The accumulated chemicals will slowly show up in ground water.

The simplicity of using Diafine is, the used developer will be sent out twice per year. And every time just one gallon or two. As of fixer, it will be sent to local lab with silver recovery unit. The only thing goes to the septic tank will be washing water and stop bath. With measures like this, there will be definitely no harm to the septic tank, and the long term quality of ground water will be maintained.