Could traditional photography products go the way of the micro-brewery?

[Photo Engineer]

Ahhh, I found the URL about the focus problem of lenses. Aha.

PE

 

[Christopher Nisperos]

Another analogy —kind of— is one-hour photolabs. Until the Japanese invented them, seemingly nobody ever imagined they were possible. Chime-in, Ron . . . do you know whether or not Kodak had this idea hidden in the back of a drawer somewhere while thinking, "Naw! This'd never make money" ?:rolleyes

More seriously, in thinking about this micro-brewery concept, I do have one question —if perhaps naïve. Which is more difficult (on more than a small scale): making an emulsion, or coating a support?

Best,

Christopher

.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Another analogy —kind of— is one-hour photolabs. Until the Japanese invented them, seemingly nobody ever imagined they were possible (chime-in, Ron . . . do you know whether or not Kodak had this idea hidden in the back of a drawer somewhere while thinking, "Naw! This'd never make money" ?:rolleyes

Best,

Christopher

.

Among other items, the last entry in my notebook in about 1982 or thereabouts, when I went out of product and process development and into emulsion work was a complete outline of a minilab for processing and printing.

Along with that went a process that minimized wash with a very powerful stabilzer that reduced wash considerably, and a process cartridge that allowed the effluent to be virtually potable water. The cartridge was then compressed and burned as fuel with little or no gaseoous byproducts.

It was turned down as 'outlandish'.

But then, these same people thought the name 'blix' was outlandish and selected 'bleach-fix'. Oh well. Some Hunt people came through the labs and saw our label Blix, and took it back and copyrighted it so Kodak couldn't use it.

Eventually, Kodak did start a group working on the minilab and I think it was independant of the Japanese effort.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

I should add that in the 70s, we had a light sensitive copper system that had a printing speed near that of Kodabromide paper. It was surprisingly fast.

I have mentioned this before here. It involved the precipitation of Cuprous Oxide emulsions rather than silver halide. The big problem was finding a binder that resisted strong acid and base and allowed the emulsion to be washed properly.

The images were not very stable. We were working on methods of stabilzing the copper metal images at the time the project ended.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

What also might be helpful is locating a billionaire photography collector who is passionate about traditional image making. Then get them to hire Dean Kamen and his team of geniuses at Deka Research to re-invent emulsion making and coating

Leonard Nimoy comes to mind.

PE

 

[Alex Hawley]

Another analogy —kind of— is one-hour photolabs. Until the Japanese invented them, seemingly nobody ever imagined they were possible. Chime-in, Ron . . . do you know whether or not Kodak had this idea hidden in the back of a drawer somewhere while thinking, "Naw! This'd never make money" ?:rolleyes

Maybe, maybe not. The US military had mobile processing labs that could be deployed to remote locations well before the 1-Hour labs came on the scene. Also, if you see my threads on the SR-71 camera systems, it is quite evident that many thousand feet of film had to be processed rapidly following one of those surveillance missions (I suspect the same need existed for the U2 flights also). Those processing systems were certainly tied to Kodak in a direct or indirect manner. In fact, the film was flown directly to Rochester for processing in the early days of the program. I suspect that the security requirements prohibited Kodak from placing the technology on the consumer market. This type of arrangement is very typical. The Japanese were free to develop and market the technology on their own without such a restriction.

As another example in a different field, we now have earphones, radios, CD players, ect. that cancel out the ambient noise from the surroundings. This noise cancellation technology came out of US/UK submarine sonar systems. Twenty to thirty years ago, it was highly classified.

 

[Petzi]

Making color film is one of the most complex chemical processes in existence, it is technically more demanding than most pharmaceuticals. Therefore, I believe that color film is in danger, while the b/w production is apparently possible at a smaller scale, and the multiplicity of manufacturers who make it is evidence of that.

 

[copake_ham]

I can't read through all these posts because:

1) We've trod down this road together before and none of us know what the destination is.

2) I've really am finding it harder and harder to think there is a future for film photography.

Part of #2 relates to the just passed Christmas season. I saw a gazillion ads for digital cameras of all types. I did not see any for analog gear. More worrisome, I did not see one ad for film!

I've got a ton of bucks invested in film gear and I sure as heck hope it remains a viable form of photography for the next 30+ years I hope to be alive. But I am less confident than ever that this will be the case.

I think the "killer" for me is when I learned that my nine year old niece was getting a digi for Xmas. She's never known film - and almost certainly never will.

What a sad thing to see such a beautiful technology die.

 

[MattKing]

I've got a ton of bucks invested in film gear and I sure as heck hope it remains a viable form of photography for the next 30+ years I hope to be alive. But I am less confident than ever that this will be the case.

I think the "killer" for me is when I learned that my nine year old niece was getting a digi for Xmas. She's never known film - and almost certainly never will.

What a sad thing to see such a beautiful technology die.

George:

Have you ever seen an ad for a view camera in anything other than a niche publication, or a website like APUG?

When you were your niece's age, did you notice any ads for cameras or film? If so, were those ads for anything other than the most basic point and shoot type cameras?

The digicamera is mainstream, and film cameras and film no longer are.

I would hazard a guess, however, that very few of the cameras you use or want to use now, were ever as mainstream as the digicamera that your niece has received.

I started out, at the age of 8, with a Brownie Starmatic. I was able to handle loading the (127) roll film and using the (AG1B) flashbulbs - I was a pretty advanced kid that way, but with a father that worked for Kodak, it came somewhat naturally. I think, however, that I was more the exception, than the rule.

When Instamatics came in, it became much more likely that an 8 or 9 year old would have a film camera, and use it.

Now, film is more and more becoming a specialist's tool. That is restricting our options somewhat, and most likely will result in increased expense, but the fact that it will most likely disappear from our corner store doesn't mean that it is necessarily going to disappear from our lives.

The experience enjoyed by your niece with her digicamera will be different, but not completely different, than the experience I enjoyed with my Brownie. She will either become more and more interested in photography, or not. She may tire of it quickly, only to become interested in it again when she is older. She may never want to do anything other than look at tiny, relatively low quality images on an LCD screen, or she may become the next great photojournalist, or portrait photographer, or abstract photographic artist. Or, she may just enjoy a lifetime of pictures of family, friends, vacations, and events in her life.

All of those options depend a little bit on the technology available to her, but much more on her interests and abilities.

Having an uncle who loves photography could very well be the most important influence of all.

Don't be worried for her. Be excited for her. You can always try to coopt her to the better, if older technology/craft/art we tend to appreciate.

$0.02 worth, as usual (CDN, of course).

Matt

 

[copake_ham]

Hi Matt,

I'd like to be as confident as you and look at the glass as being half full. But I cannot help but see it as half empty.

Besides my niece, the other side of the coin is that yesterday we hosted a party and a 60-something guy remarked how surprised he was to see I was still shooting film. He's an experienced shooter and has "gone digital". He was also surprised to learn that I too can "manipulate" film images if I want to by scanning them. OTOH, I was surprised that anyone would want to "manipulate" in PS beyond a little contrast or color adjustment!

And tonight at a restaurant here in Tucson (AZ tonight - back to NY tomorrow) at the table of the late middle-aged couple next to us the "dude" was proudly displaying his brand new DSLR on the table. Guess he wanted to show off his new Xmas toy!

The sad reality is, it's not about how many (fewer every day) consumers use film gear - there is no longer any pro market for film. "In the day" in NYC (where I live) an advertising agency studio would shoot more film in 24 hours that I would probably shoot in a decade!

That market for film, like so many others, is gone!

I just don't see how we apparent dinosaurs can survive much longer and I'm real sad about it.

 

[Sean]

I still believe no matter what happens there will be 10,000's of people who want to use film and papers -maybe more (just like there are 1,000's of people who refuse to use anything other than vinyl records). So here we have this decent little market that can be tapped. Someone somewhere will want a piece of that action and they'll get production methods down to a small scale and to an art so they can cash in big time. I think where there is a demand even on a niche scale someone will innovate and find a way to take advantage of that and provide product.

 

[athanasius80]

I'm 26 and just bought my first 8x10, so the "death" of analog photography weighs heavily on me. But honestly, I'm not too worried.

From what I've seen in artistic and hobbyist markets, things endure. Painting still is viable. Pipe organ builders still cast pipe metal by hand. I own an antique car, and now that its hard to find good used Model T Ford crankshafts and transmission drums, a couple companies have started reproducing both. Granted, a coating line is infinately more complicated than say a cast iron foundry, I think somehow a niche market will survive for B&W. Maybe not for color, but I think we'll still have monochrome film.

Just my $0.02

Oh and to make a beer analogy, don't people tend to get more passionate about things when they're a little uncommon? Whens the last time you saw someone get excited over Budweiser?

 

[ben-s]

As we all seem to be chucking in our .02 (insert currency here), I'll have a say.

Before we all get dejected and leap to our deaths from passing bridges, why not take a step back and look at two recent announcements? I refer, of course to Fuji and Ilford reintroducing Velvia 50 and SFX, respectively.
Both companies have said in no uncertain terms that they are committed to film, even though both deal in pixels too.

I think that we may see a slump for film, but I very much doubt that It's going to fall off the face of the planet for a good while yet.

There is obviously a need to learn from knowledable people like Ron, and quickly at that, so that we can make our own film and paper even after it's commercial demise.
I suspect the main problem here will be convincing people that we need to learn the science and technology of emulsion making now, so we can apply it in the future.

I think there is a clear need to get small scale making and coating machines available, and match them up with people who know what they are doing with emulsions.

The software to drive making and coating machines could be relatively simple - after all, for the most part, it's adding certain amounts of certain chemicals at a certain speed to a pot at a certain temperature, while stirring and measuring certain properties of the emulsion.
The major stumbling block for us who are not photo engineers is knowing what numbers to put into the thing to get the desired output.

There must be somebody out there who would finance (at least partially) the R&D needed to produce such machines?

 

[srs5694]

I think the "killer" for me is when I learned that my nine year old niece was getting a digi for Xmas. She's never known film - and almost certainly never will.

Let me counter that tale with an anecdote of my own: I gave the 4.5-year-old daughter of a friend of mine a film camera for Christmas. (Just a P&S model, of course.) It came with a roll of color film and I gave her a roll of B&W film and told her I'd process both rolls myself as part of the present. When asked which film she wanted to shoot first, she quickly replied that she wanted to shoot the B&W first. Whether this will lead to another consumer helping keep film alive in another decade or so is a question I can't answer, but it's at least possible that her exposure to my B&W photography, as well as early experiences with it herself, will lead down that path.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Here is a rough outline of the flow and equipment used in making a film.

1. A desktop PC or MAC with software to assist in design of an emulsion. This models the process and tells the designer what things are inside and outside the tolernaces of good practice. The operator has full control and override. The resultant emulsion formula is put out as a code disk and a printout for the lab tech on what to mix and how to setup the equipment.

2. A desktop PC with a process control board with Digital to Analog and Analog to Digital converters connected to pumps and relays to control solution flow and temperature as well as mixer speed. The control code disk runs this process and the technician charges the equipment with the proper chemicals and presses a "RUN" button on the computer.

3. A finishing station that pumps in set quantities of chemicals at given temperatures for achieving a proper balance of speed and contrast.

4. A coating machine that is essentially a large extrusion painting machine with 2 air conditioners, one for cold and one for hot. It has an on off switch for each item, and speed and temperature settings and a flow rate and speed control. It is basically a very simple setup. And, there is one of each of these for each layer that is to be coated.

For small scale operation, usually it occupies a total space of a 4 car garage with the coating portion being the 2 car garage. That will allow coating 4x5, 120 and 35mm film and can be operated by about 2 people if they know what they are doing and do things sequentially. If all operations are continuous, then it takes about 5 - 8 people to run it.

The problem comes in this. All of this must be very precise in control, temperature and chemical purity. This is where the expense comes in. The quality control of incoming chemicals and equipment such as pumps went beyond that of any ordinary operation to prevent problems.

An example of this is silver nitrate. We got this from a company that showed us identical analyses on two batches, but one batch would not work and our analysis differed from theirs in parts per million or billion, I forget now, but the tiny heavy metal impurity ruined a batch of emulsion.

Sensitizng dyes would be needed at $100 US / gram.

Motors for running the pumps and coating machine would have to be accurate to parts per million or you see emulsion quality problems or banding in the coating.

Filters and vacuum pumps must be used along with hepa filtered clean rooms or you get spots on your film.

So the devil (cost) is in the detail and control of detail.

And, after all of this the film must be inspected (in the dark), then slit, chopped and packaged without introducing any further defects.

PE

 

[Fintan]

What a sad thing to see such a beautiful technology die.

Ah come on, its decreased but its not dying.

You know people might laugh at the Holga, but over 100,000 sell every year. And theres about 1.2 million of them out there.

I think we should have a forum for toy cameras and try get them online here.

Any why-o-why dont the likes of Ilford make some square sizes defies me.

 

[Fintan]

Interesting post PE, if you had to put a price on that, what would it be ballpark? Could the machinery be purchased from one of the companies after exiting the market?

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Hi Matt,

OTOH, I was surprised that anyone would want to "manipulate" in PS beyond a little contrast or color adjustment!

Well, on my scanned film, I do more than I used to do in the darkroom, including the darkroom techniques of dodging and burning, spotting dust, and the digital techniques removing trash from scenics (cans, food wrappers) taking out offending electric wires, etc. Then of course the color balance, saturation, contrast, sharpness, etc.

 

[JBrunner]

How were the silver and platinum papers that EW printed on in the twenties and thirties produced? Was paper already mass produced by the methods described as todays technology? Or was it made on a smaller scale with more primitive methods? If so, what was the actual quality? Not the same as today, of course, but acceptable for the time?

 

[Photo Engineer]

If the equipment already existed, then one run would be about $25,000 US at a ballpark guess.

If the machine was wider, say production, then increase the cost to about $100,000 for one master roll.

I would not care to guess at the cost of the plant though, but it would be in the millions, at least.

BTW, the decrease in film sales is far beyond what anyone here comprehends. Kodak was once in the $20 B US in film sales and now is in the high $M or very low $B US in film sales. (IDK what the figure is but it is not in the billions like it was anymore. Revenues are coming from digital sales now.

PE

 

[gr82bart]

I think we should have a forum for toy cameras and try get them online here.

Go to Dead Link Removed That's where all the holgaholics hang.

Regards, Art.

 

[Henning Serger]

The sad reality is, it's not about how many (fewer every day) consumers use film gear - there is no longer any pro market for film....

...and that is not true! Because

1. Kodak has published the results of their recent market research: According to their studies more than 50 % of all professional photographers want to use film in the future. Not exclusively (most will use both film and digital), but for a lot of applications.
2. In the last 12 - 14 months 13 (!!) new or improved films were introduced, most of them for professionals (Rollei Pan 25, Rollei Ortho 25, Rollei Infrared, Spur Orthopan, Kodak Portra 800, Kodak Portra 160 NC and VC, Portra 400 NC and VC, Fujichrome T64, Fujichrome Provia 400X, Rollei Slide Direct, Rollei ScanFilm).
This year we will see the re-introduction of Ilford SFX and Fuji Velvia 50. Furthermore Fuji will present two improved Superia Films (x-tra 200 and 400, they said that at Photokina 2006), and there are some hints of new Rollei Films this year, too.
The film manufacturers invest a lot of money in new products, because they know that there is a sufficient demand for their films in the future.

By the way, Kodak is running an intensive advertising campaign in photo magazines for their new Portras here in Germany (including free film). And I have seen their advertising on photo.net, too.

Don't worry and make yourself sad. Enjoy the wonderful films we have. As long as we buy the films, they will be there.

Best Regards,
Henning

 

[gr82bart]

Kodak was once in the $20 B US in film sales and now is in the high $M or very low $B US in film sales.

Kodak's total sales from all segments was $14.2B in 2005, which is up from $12.9B in 2003. In it's last filing it's expected to be 6% lower in 2006.

It's digital and film imaging segment sales:

were $8,460 million for 2005 as compared with $9,366 million for 2004

In terms of digital sales alone, it's number one with market share of about 14% (from memory) of all digital products combined.

Still a decent company, but definitely not the superliner it once was, but I'd say it's making it's way through the film to digital (or as my dad says chemistry to physics) flux pretty well.

Regards, Art.

 

[ben-s]

The broad outline Ron posted was somewhat similar to what I had imagined.

As regards the coating though, I was thinking something completely different - rather than making a master roll, coat onto substrates just a little wider than your intended size, and cut down;

Taking as an example 4x5" sheet film, coat onto 5" wide stock, dry and spool, then run the roll through a slitting device set at 4" (as is used to obtain 8mm strips from 35mm film, just bigger), yielding a 4" wide strip of film, hopefully of high quality, as any coating edge defects will have been trimmed off.

Finally pass the film through an automatic cutter, similar to that used in roll fed fax machines. To do this accurately, you would need an encoder that measures the film before it passes through.

The last two steps could be done without respooling.
If you could get the emulsion to dry in a small enough space, I guess you could go straight into the cutting process without spooling at all.

I think that the same method could be used on 120, and possibly 35mm also.
With 35mm, one would need some method of adding perfs though.

IDK how well this would work, or whether it's reinventing the wheel.

 

[Henning Serger]

....Kodak... Revenues are coming from digital sales now.

PE

Dear PE,

that is definitely not true. Please read Kodaks quarterly reports they had to publish for their shareholders and the stock market.
Kodaks profits are coming from their traditional analog products, not from the digital products. With their digital products they loose a lot of money. That's the situation for years.

Best regards,
Henning