Does 35mm color slide film have a future?

[PKM-25]

Oh my, this is going to happen quicker than I had hoped. I was hoping I had about two years, but to expect that would be foolish at this point.

You see, if you look through other posts, you will find I am doing a project called, "Our American Dream: One last look on Kodachrome.

We'll be down to one lab, this is a wakeup call for me.

Kodachrome has to become a full time job for me now.

Thanks for posting this.

I just ordered another 200 rolls of 64 from B&H...

 

[naturephoto1]

Yes, I would say that 35mm slide film will continue to be available for the foreseeable future. I have been shooting slides for over 30 years. If there are enough of us that use the material the manufacturers will continue to make it.

Rich

 

[firecracker]

Oh my, this is going to happen quicker than I had hoped. I was hoping I had about two years, but to expect that would be foolish at this point.

You see, if you look through other posts, you will find I am doing a project called, "Our American Dream: One last look on Kodachrome.

We'll be down to one lab, this is a wakeup call for me.

Kodachrome has to become a full time job for me now.

Thanks for posting this.

Are you in Japan? I should've made it clear that if you're in the U.S. or other markets, you'll have the Kodachrome64 film. The statement came from the Japanese Kodak regarding the change(s) in the Japanese market only. It also says that in other markets, meaning outside of Japan, the Kodachrome 64 film will still be available as usual.

The label of the film looks different from what I used to know, but I think this is the 64 film that many people including professionals are very familiar with. However, it's not labeled as a professional film in the Japanese catalogue.

What this has to do is that the Japanese users have to wander around online and find the next best place to get this product and have it processed, unless they just switch to Fuji only, which has been their reliable company in many ways, but who knows!

 

[Matt5791]

Super8 was eclipsed in its market place by Video 20 years ago.

Today there are more emulsions available for Super8 cameras than ever before, and nobody has made a new super8 camera for at least 10 years, and 20 years in any kind of quantity.

Don't even think about worrying about the demise of stills formats.

My advise - get a medium format camera.

 

[firecracker]

Super8 was eclipsed in its market place by Video 20 years ago.

Today there are more emulsions available for Super8 cameras than ever before, and nobody has made a new super8 camera for at least 10 years, and 20 years in any kind of quantity.

Don't even think about worrying about the demise of stills formats.

My advise - get a medium format camera.

The regular 8mm by Fuji, which I belive is the only manufacturer, is going out, and this is a pretty big tragedy for the Japanese film community(short film and animation pros, amateurs, and students). Apparently, the regular 8 was their bread and butter for several decades. So we don't know.

Kodak has been on Super 8 mainly in the U.S., and it's great that it's still providing it. But again I don't know its availability in other markets. It looks like each manufacturer has a speciality(monopoloy) in each market, and they don't tend mix.

I have no big fear about the future of film products, but the market I'm in (Japanese) is certainly dying pretty fast, faster than other markets, so I personally just have to keep up with the latest news.

 

[JBrunner]

Super 8 is also offered by resellers who are purchasing larger gauge stocks and cutting it down. I also recieved word last year that one of the transfer houses I use invested the money to install a super8 gate and transport system. Not exactly a cheap investment.

Ive been hearing the FID thing for an awful long time now, and I think that its appropraite to have a doom and gloom subforum for the FID's to go mope around in, while the rest of us get on with our work. Had an interesting conversation with the creative director of a large advertising agency at a party last night. He says he's sick of digital, and doesn't buy the press anymore.


He "wants to shoot more, and bigger film, and leave the digital stuff to the wannabe's"

 

[waynecrider]

When I look at my local marketplace as concerns the availability of processing in reference to E6 emulsions I see nothing but a shrinking market. In threads that I have read here and elsewhere people have asked the question as to where to send film since processing is not available as it once was. So in effect Photo Engineer is correct just from my casual observers point of view. Now I know that large format E6 processing is shrinking rapidly. Labs simply cannot maintain lines dedicated to LF E6.
The thing with MF tho is that not many of us can afford a digital back even if we wanted one, so it's quite possible that, and as small as it may be due to the digital onslaught, it might maintain itself depending on the number of amatuers moving into the now cheaper equipment format and the number of pro's returning to the format to shoot transparencies which from what I read is increasing. Mf scanners are also quite affordable nowdays. Now 35mm slides obviously allow economical safety shots when shooting at night, but the whole color compensation deal seems better suited to one shooting negatives and quite possibly tungsten ones at that although there is one tungsten slide film available from Fuji on B&H's site; Well for now.

Overall "I" much prefer a fast negative film in MF, but there is no argueing the fact that a Mf transparency, and Lf one for that matter, have a greater visual appeal. Think again about what you are trying to accomplish and at what level you are trying to work at. MF might just be a viability if only working with a cheaper TLR for a step up now.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Wayne;

From my POV, I am not making just a casual observation. I saw Kodachrome sales begin slipping in the late 80s before digital and when Kodak still advertized it. It slipped due to the percieved quality and process improvements in E6, and a drop in interest in reversal films when compared to the C41 family of films.

People said that Kodak's lack of support for Kodachrome began its slide, but from the inside, I saw the opposite. Remember, they went ahead with a t-grain 400 speed Kodachrome that was never sold due to customer apathy. The dropoff was from the consumer side. So, Kodachrome, which used to be coated at several plants 24/7/365 is now coated at 1 plant, about once each year. That is a huge drop. In addition, the patent on the Kodachrome process has now been abandoned by Kodak to encourage anyone to use it if they wish.

Then E6 and Kodachrome began the big slide in the late 90s due to digital while negative held its own, so to speak.

The drop is in LF, MF and 35mm in roughly that order in all film usage but mostly in E6 films. Therefore it is much harder to get LF and MF E6 films processed than it is the 35mm films, but the time is approaching now as well when getting 35mm E6 films processed will be difficult.

I don't like it any more than any of you do, but what can I do to stop this trend? Well, buying more film is a drop in the bucket. If you look at APUG membership, about 18,000 and consider if they each bought a roll of film a day every day, this would about use one master roll of coated film from the plant.

Remember, Agfa, Kodak and Fuji once supplied billions of rolls per year of 35mm, and now it is down to millions. This is at least an order of magnitude loss in sales.

PE

 

[PKM-25]

Are you in Japan? I should've made it clear that if you're in the U.S. or other markets, you'll have the Kodachrome64 film. The statement came from the Japanese Kodak regarding the change(s) in the Japanese market only. It also says that in other markets, meaning outside of Japan, the Kodachrome 64 film will still be available as usual.

The label of the film looks different from what I used to know, but I think this is the 64 film that many people including professionals are very familiar with. However, it's not labeled as a professional film in the Japanese catalogue.

What this has to do is that the Japanese users have to wander around online and find the next best place to get this product and have it processed, unless they just switch to Fuji only, which has been their reliable company in many ways, but who knows!

No, I am not in Japan, but to see two labs close down in a year's time is pretty much writing on the wall. This project is too important to just assume that I will have a two or three year window. At this rate, I bet by this time next year, Kodak will have announced the discontinuing of Kodachrome across the board.

 

[firecracker]

I don't like it any more than any of you do, but what can I do to stop this trend? Well, buying more film is a drop in the bucket. If you look at APUG membership, about 18,000 and consider if they each bought a roll of film a day every day, this would about use one master roll of coated film from the plant.

I think we need a big international film stock place that collects optional membership fees, buys certain products from certain manufacturers, and re-sells them to its members with assurance.

Maybe APUG will have a service like that someday.

 

[Henning Serger]

Hallo PE,

do you refer to Kodak master rolls? And are these rolls really so big? As far as I remember (anyone who knows better can correct me), the master rolls Ilford and Agfa use(d) contain 120000 35 mm films.
If every APUG Member buys one roll per day over a year, you get 6570000 films. That would be 53,4 Ilford master rolls.

At the photokina this year several officials from film manufacturers said that they expect a stabilising in the film demand in the next four to seven years. They give a relative optimistic outlook that all types of film, CN, slide and BW, can be produced in the future (according to their market research). On significant lower volumes, no question, but they think there will be enough film users for a profitable production.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[waynecrider]

Wayne;

From my POV, I am not making just a casual observation.

PE

I'm the casual observer. I corrected my text so that it wouldn't look as if I was judging you.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I'm the casual observer. I corrected my text so that it wouldn't look as if I was judging you.

Wayne;

My apologies, I was just stating something, not meaning to criticize. It was meant to emphasize the remarks but now I see how it would look. So sorry.


Henning;

Kodak master rolls run up to 72" or about 2 meters wide by about 1.2 km long (about 5000 ft). This works out to about 30,000 rolls of 36 exposure or about 220 master rolls. Your number looks low to me but then I don't know anything about Ilford production sizes. Check my math please.

In any event, I was speaking generally to give an idea of how much production had changed. It has gone from a continuous coating operation to a yearly coating operation for some products, and Kodak can supply the entire world with Kodachrome now made once a year however many rolls they produce. So, consumption is far below this figure and nothing we calculate will change this. We can't get every member to buy one roll / day or even / week.

In addition, both the Kodakcrome and E6 color developers run at very high pH values, and are hard to control unless they keep running 24/7 which is what they were designed to do. When you fall below a certain level of throughput in the processing lab, then your process goes out of control. When we reach that point, look out for your quality. It will go out the window.

PE

 

[mw_uio]

There is no Kodachrome 64 in Ecuador. Here we have Kodak Elitechrome and Ektachorme 100VS/G/GX. The Fuji line up: Velvia 100, Sensia, Provia/F and Astia. Kodak here in Quito, has a Prolab with E-6 processing. Fuji here in Quito does not process E-6. There are two other labs the process E-6. For the general consumer I think that they are bent on digital, and like going to the digital kiosk and getting their prints/garbage.

With Fuji bringing back Velvia 50, they care as a company and continue to capture more market!

Mark
Quito, Ecuador

F3HP/MD4, 24/F2.8, 28/F2.8, 85 F1.4

 

[Henning Serger]

Henning;

Kodak master rolls run up to 72" or about 2 meters wide by about 1.2 km long (about 5000 ft). This works out to about 30,000 rolls of 36 exposure or about 220 master rolls. Your number looks low to me but then I don't know anything about Ilford production sizes. Check my math please.

Hallo PE,

Thank you for your answer and the numbers. If I calculate the length of a 35mm film with 1,7 m (I hope I remember right), than I get about 40,000 rolls of 36 exposure. But I don't know much unusuable filmrests are caused by the cutting of the master roll.
Anyway, I think this details are not so important. I think I've got what you have meant with your original posting.

In any event, I was speaking generally to give an idea of how much production had changed. It has gone from a continuous coating operation to a yearly coating operation for some products, and Kodak can supply the entire world with Kodachrome now made once a year however many rolls they produce. So, consumption is far below this figure and nothing we calculate will change this. We can't get every member to buy one roll / day or even / week.

PE

I am a bit more optimistic than you, because Kodachrome is not representative for the whole slide market.
Kodachrome was the benchmark in slide photography for decades till the end of the eigthies. Then, with great improvements in the E6-films and with the arrival of Fuji Velvia in 1989/90, Kodachrome lost its leading role and became a niche product compared to lots of other slide films, especially Velvia and the Sensia line. For example most nature photographers, almost exclusively using Kodachrome for a long time, turned to Velvia and Sensia in the nineties. And Kodak in general lost a lot of his market share in slide photography (their E6 films, too) to Fuji in the last 15 years.
That Fuji is regularly introducing new or improved slide films makes me relative optimistic. They are even convinced that there is a sufficient market for such a (niche) product like the new T64 and invest money in this new product. The market for normal daylight films is definitely much bigger.

By the way, apug is an excellent forum, no doubt at all, but I think apug is not (completely) representative for the worlwide film users (as most of all the digital forums are not representative for the digital photographers).
Most of the film photographers I knew have never looked into a forum. They buy their films in the supermarket or the photostore, enjoy their pictures and have no fear that there will be no more films to buy in the future....;-)).

Best regards (and sorry for my terrible english),
Henning

 

[Photo Engineer]

Henning;

I agree with all you have said. But, I wish to add that what I said about Kodachrome can be said about Tri-X or T-Max, it is just that the drop is not so huge. Tri-X was once coated as much as Kodachrome or more, but now it is down to being coated as needed, much as is Kodachrome. Only, Tri-X is coated more often due to higher demand.

Those buying at the supermarket, buy color negative film. At least, that is all I see here in our supermarkets. And again, this goes back to the original question.

PE

 

[keithwms]

On the one hand one could say there isn't any future for 35mm slide because even with a good scanner the performance is not significantly different from what one can get with a good DSLR, and ilfochromes are just too expensive for most 35mm users.

My point is that in view of digital technology, the case for 35mm negatives especially b&w seems much more clear.

I recently perused the financial reports for fuji and discovered that instant cameras and minilabs and such are still making a whole lot of money for them; people still really like the throwaways. And those are all based (as far as I know) on negative films.

On the other hand, there are still good reasons to shoot medium and large format slides, so why not keep the 35mm rolls alive as well? After all, there is generally more money to be made when one can bulk produce a product and then sell it in smaller units.... the famously successful 3M (as I recall) "make it by the mile, sell it by the inch" strategy. I suspect that this is the form of reasoning that is applied in the board room at Fuji and elsewhere; they are not discussing dynamic range and grain and MTF and all that.... unfortunately....

 

[Matt5791]

The regular 8mm by Fuji, which I belive is the only manufacturer, is going out, and this is a pretty big tragedy for the Japanese film community(short film and animation pros, amateurs, and students). Apparently, the regular 8 was their bread and butter for several decades. So we don't know.

Kodak has been on Super 8 mainly in the U.S., and it's great that it's still providing it. But again I don't know its availability in other markets. It looks like each manufacturer has a speciality(monopoloy) in each market, and they don't tend mix.

I have no big fear about the future of film products, but the market I'm in (Japanese) is certainly dying pretty fast, faster than other markets, so I personally just have to keep up with the latest news.

The Fuji system was Single 8mm - identical in size to super8, but thinner due to the polyester base.

The problem with the two Fuji films was as with Kodachrome 40 Super8 (now discontinued) - the process. it was also a special process and if there are not enough films then it becomes unprofitable, especially when you decide you need to do a major lab refit or something.

However there are people stuffing Single8 cartridges with various films (mainly E-6) as we speak to keep the format alive.

 

[Matt5791]

Wayne;

From my POV, I am not making just a casual observation. I saw Kodachrome sales begin slipping in the late 80s before digital and when Kodak still advertized it. It slipped due to the percieved quality and process improvements in E6, and a drop in interest in reversal films when compared to the C41 family of films.

People said that Kodak's lack of support for Kodachrome began its slide, but from the inside, I saw the opposite. Remember, they went ahead with a t-grain 400 speed Kodachrome that was never sold due to customer apathy. The dropoff was from the consumer side. So, Kodachrome, which used to be coated at several plants 24/7/365 is now coated at 1 plant, about once each year. That is a huge drop. In addition, the patent on the Kodachrome process has now been abandoned by Kodak to encourage anyone to use it if they wish.

Then E6 and Kodachrome began the big slide in the late 90s due to digital while negative held its own, so to speak.


PE

Really interesting that there was a T-grain Kodachrome never sold.

When did they come up with it?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Really interesting that there was a T-grain Kodachrome never sold.

When did they come up with it?

IDK exactly. IIRC about 1988. It was to be ISO 400. There was a whole family of films planned, but declining sales wiped the whole thing out.

PE

 

[Henning Serger]

Henning;

I agree with all you have said. But, I wish to add that what I said about Kodachrome can be said about Tri-X or T-Max, it is just that the drop is not so huge......

PE

Hallo PE,

I understand your point of view, but I think that we can be a bit more optimistic if we look at the whole industry and not only at Kodak:

- at photokina Fuji reported that their BW film sales are increasing, their sales of professional films (cn and slides) are quite stable, and the introduction of new slide films indicates that they see a profitable market in the future
- Maco/Rollei reported increasing film sales as well, especially their infrared film and the R³
- ilford reported increasing sales in the US market
- recently here in the german press a statement of the photo industry has been published: According to this statement about 60-70 % of the decrease in film sales, caused by the digital boom, has already happened. So the worst lies already behind us. I think that are pretty good news.
There is a good chance that the film sales will stabilise in the next years. I think that in two or three years most of the photographers will have made their decision: To change completely to digital, using both digital and film parallel or stay with film exclusively.

Furthermore there are some other reasons why I am a bit more optimistic concerning the future of film:
1. Today we have about 500 million photographers worldwide (it's not really important for my argument whether it really are 450 or 550 millions). Because of the rapid economic growth in countries like China, India, Brasilia, the east european states, Russia etc. we will have 600-700 million photographers worldwide in the next six to ten years.
So, even if you have a pessimistic look to the future and think that only five to ten percent of all photographers will use film in the future, you will get a number of 30-70 million film users worldwide. These film users will probably be enthusiastic photographers and film lovers, who will need 30, 40 or more rolls of film per year. So we will get a film market of at least over 2 billion dollars/year, probably more. That is enough to let film and several manufacturers survive.
And don't forget, even if 90 % of all photographers worldwide will go digital, this will not result in a 90 % decrease of film sales. Because lots of point and shoot photographers will or have yet gone digital, but they have used only very small numbers of film per year (five or six films). But the film enthusiasts and a certain number of professionals, who continue to use film, use rather high volumes of film per year. So it is possible, that even with a (relative to digital) small number of film users the film sales will stabilise and then stay on a sustainable level.

2. Human beings are individuals, they don't behave completely identical. Therefore we will never see 100 % of photographers using digital equipment.
Exactly as we will never see all drivers in a Volkswagen, all vine drinkers changing to beer....etc.

3. And here in Germany, especially in the BW and darkroom forums, we can already see a small trend in the beginning. People, who start their photography with digital, look with interest to the classic techniques with film. It's new to them, and the possibility to change the sensor immediately for only two or three Euros seems very attractive.....
And I've watched that more and more computer experts love to go to the darkroom, because they don't want to sit in front of a computer monitor their whole life, during their work and in their free time. They like the complete different feeling with film and want to escape from the "Microsoft-World" (because digital photography is a part of it, no doubt).
And I think that our children, who grow up with digital cameras, will discover the classic photography for themselves. It will be a new and exciting thing for them (like digital is for us today), and they can show their individualism and can separate themselves from their daddys with the boring digital stuff, which everyone has.... .

4. If you look at trends in the economic history, you will see that almost every trend is followed after some years by another trend in the opposite direction, a "retro-trend". The retro trend is not as strong as the original trend, but it has a stabilising effect (in this case a stabilising effect to film sales).

5. The look into the history of photography feed my optimism, too:
The digital revolution is not the first revolution in the history of photography.
We've seen the "35mm revolution", starting with the Leica. But what had happened to LF and MF, did they die? No, they became a niche relative to 35mm (if I remenber right, only about one percent of all photographers use MF and LF, please correct me if you have more precise data). A niche relative to 35mm, but very active with several camera manufacturers and film suppliers.
Then we saw the "SLR revolution" in the sixties and seventies. But what had happened to TLRs and rangefinders? Did they die? No, they became a niche relative to SLRs. And in the last 15 years, we saw even a certain retro-trend back to rangefinders, with the contx G1/G2, Konica Hexar, the Voigtländers/Epson, Leica M7, MP, M8, the Zeiss Ikons. And we even have three TLRs from Franke&Heidecke (Rolleiflex) again!

And then we had the "colour revolution". And I think the colour revolution is very similar to what we will see concerning the topic digital vs. film.
Remember the end of the sixties and beginning of the seventies, when colour negative film came into the market and the sales of BW-film (which was market dominant so far) decreased. People said BW is dead and has no future. It's only for colour-blindes and crazy people. But what happened? A decade (the seventies) with strong sale decreases. In 1980 we see the bottom of the volume of BW-film sales, and after that the sales were again increasing. Furthermore, lots of innovations in BW were made after 1980, e.g. chromogenic films, T-Grain (Kodak), Delta technology (Ilford), great improvements with multigrade papers, hydrochinone-free developers, microfilms for conventional photography (gigabitfilm, Spur Orthopan...) etc.
I think we will see a similar development in the next years concerning digital vs. film (at least concerning the development of the sales numbers, concerning further innovations its more difficult to say, but I think we will see some in the future, because film technology is not at its end yet).

These are some of the reasons, why I think film (CN, slide and BW) has a future. Not only for the next ten years, but for the rest of my life.
I will buy film in twenty years, when nobody knows what a CF-card is.... .

Let's hope that I will be right .

I wish you all a very happy christmas and lots of good pictures in these days!

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

On the one hand one could say there isn't any future for 35mm slide because even with a good scanner the performance is not significantly different from what one can get with a good DSLR, and ilfochromes are just too expensive for most 35mm users.

Hallo Keith,

you need a really good scanner (drum scanner) to get all the details from a slide film like Velvia for example. The amateur scanners (even the Nikon Coolscans) are not sufficient. The problem is that most photographers use rather mediocre scanners and so come to the conclusion, that digital is on the same level or better.
There are still very good reasons for 35mm slide films:
1. The projection is far superior to digital beamers (at least to the ones you can afford).
2. Looking at slides with a good slide-loupe gives you a sharpness and brillance you can never achieve with a monitor. When I compare the same picture on a slide and on a monitor, the monitor look is simply awful.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Photo Engineer]

Henning;

Just taking point #1, I would like to comment.

Kodak built a plant in Brazil, and entered into an agreement with China to produce film in those two companies. As the economy grew, it was expected that the B&W market would begin to explode, and then the people would begin to use color.

What actually happened, as the economies of those areas expanded was this.....

As the price of digital cameras fell, and quality rose, two things took place. First, people jumped directly to disposable cameras with color, and then suddenly leaped into digital. B&W printing died totally and the plant in Brazil closed. Kodak closed its deal with the Chinese companies due to lack of demand and low quality.

So, these developing countries are using digital, or color. Since Kodak closed plants but had a large share of the market, what was left as Kodak products vanished and Agfa products vanished was taken up by Fuji, and so their share of a shrinking market increased.

A complete economic analysis of the total industry shows that it is still contracting rapidly in all areas.

In the US meanwhile, B&W and color neg continue strong in all formats, but with LF and MF shrinking. E6 world-wide is gradually dying.

PE

 

[keithwms]

Hi Henning, I agree, I know one can get great results from drum scanning 35mm but that isn't a financially realistic path for most people.

Personally, when I did my own cost/benefit analysis, I concluded that slides of 645 and up make a lot of sense for me, but not 35mm any more. Everybody has to do his/her own calculations, there's no solution that suits everyone.

 

[Thanasis]

2. Looking at slides with a good slide-loupe gives you a sharpness and brillance you can never achieve with a monitor. When I compare the same picture on a slide and on a monitor, the monitor look is simply awful.

Best regards,
Henning

I couldn't agree with you more. Transparencies are practically noise-free and have so much more clarity through a good loupe.

There are still a few places with professional equipment that can make amazing Ilfochrome reproductions of a 35mm transparency without the aid of digital scanning using a purely analogue process. It's unfortunate that their numbers are dwindling though. There is only one in Australia that I know of.

regards,
Thanasis